Like the American Health care System, the ruling elite want to treat symptoms, not root causes.
We can be sure that drilling will be the answer instead of new and renewable sources of energy.

The bush doctrine = Shock and Awwwww fuck you! We do what we want when we want and we will tase your ass for not following.

Leadership @ 1:

Like the American Health care System, the ruling elite want to treat symptoms, not root causes.
We can be sure that drilling will be the answer instead of new and renewable sources of energy.

Unfortunately true at the moment, though I've seen from the 80's to now slightly more people in the US getting pissed of and questioning it.

The end game is going to be decided by either the perseverance of the few (who actually read books and likely speak more than one language) and the xenophobic nutters and usual suspects using the apathy of the masses to win out.

I'm 3/4 the way through reading this book.
It appears to me that we Amurikans are in the process
of economic Shock Doctrine being shoved up our ass.
Let's all enjoy our serfdom shall we?

She was great on the Hour a while back
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-eQbZXzmm7g

I never understand this talk about Chimpy being an oil man. Didn't he FAIL in the oil business...not once but twice???

And the only reason he got a second chance is because Daddy picked him up and wiped his nose after he fell. Must be nice to have connections, right Chimpy???

10 @ ysbaddaden- Great, now we’ll have a shortage of petroleum jelly.

No, there are lots of asses yet to be 'drilled'.

Yeah, Bush's Administration is so all-powerful they can control resources in the hands of other religions and people ideologically opposed to them.

Fuck it, if I wanted this sort of conspiracy nonsense, I'dve visited Freep.com or Townhall.com. Bush is too incompetent, and Cheney's too old, and the rest of the damn administration is too damn stupid to pull this conspiracy stuff off.

ANWR is not some panacea, and if people are too damn stupid to actually research it, that's their own damned fault. It's what we get for creating this globalized empire and expecting everyone to lick our boots. Eventually, sometime, they get pissed and lash back.

And WTF are we supposed to do for energy since we can't drill and nobody wants to shellack out the money to research something new? Go back to the days of the horse and buggy, or perhaps since this NIMBY attitude is everywhere and coal isn't an option, to Roman-style transportation?

If oil drilling is bad, coal isn't feasible because it's dirty, nuclear energy is out, what do we us? Bullshit the way the Irish did?

Or do we go back to the happy Medieval days when the Church ruled everything and there was iron-clad caste systems everywhere?

ysbaddaden @ 6:

Like you said, once added to the entire oil market ANWR would hardly create a ripple.

Yesterday on C-Span during a hearing on Electronic Messages custodianship, this one Democrat kept allowing republicans to talk during his time. They kept introducing people like republican governors accusing Congress of wasting time on such issues, while they shed crocodile tears for the poor oppessed Americans wanting cheaper gas and more drilling.

I was getting frusterated with that one Democrat, but when he was allowed the last word to summarize he essentially said, that was all relevant to the Electronic Message custodianship, because still no one knows what was said at chainey's secret meeting with oil executives.

I wish I could remember his name, but I was impressed. He was putting it squarely into the laps of an over-secretive booshco, who right now in the absence of this new law determine what to remove from the records, and chainey. That was sweet because this one goober was trying to blame Bubba Clinton for our current energy woes.

Again, if oil isn't a viable option in the long run (which it isn't), and coal and nuclear energy are out of the picture, what else do we use? Or do we go back to the Environmentalist equivalent of the 50s family, a Shire-like shithole where most of us are slaves to the local vassal lord? (No, environmentalists aren't feudalists, but the situation they want doesn't create utopia, it requires feudalism to work.)

Somebody @ 14:

The Truth Hurts @ 11:

I never understand this talk about Chimpy being an oil man. Didn't he FAIL in the oil business...not once but twice???

And the only reason he got a second chance is because Daddy picked him up and wiped his nose after he fell. Must be nice to have connections, right Chimpy???

Good point...
But this goes along with the mythology that Bush is an idiot. He is the must successful idiot in history - Witness the Fisa vote...
It seems anything but reality is great for BushCo!!

The most successful idiot in history was Adam Smith.

liberalNmoderation @ 20:

General_Rennenkampf @ 17:

ysbaddaden @ 6:

Like you said, once added to the entire oil market ANWR would hardly create a ripple.

Yesterday on C-Span during a hearing on Electronic Messages custodianship, this one Democrat kept allowing republicans to talk during his time. They kept introducing people like republican governors accusing Congress of wasting time on such issues, while they shed crocodile tears for the poor oppessed Americans wanting cheaper gas and more drilling.

I was getting frusterated with that one Democrat, but when he was allowed the last word to summarize he essentially said, that was all relevant to the Electronic Message custodianship, because still no one knows what was said at chainey's secret meeting with oil executives.

I wish I could remember his name, but I was impressed. He was putting it squarely into the laps of an over-secretive booshco, who right now in the absence of this new law determine what to remove from the records, and chainey. That was sweet because this one goober was trying to blame Bubba Clinton for our current energy woes.

Again, if oil isn't a viable option in the long run (which it isn't), and coal and nuclear energy are out of the picture, what else do we use? Or do we go back to the Environmentalist equivalent of the 50s family, a Shire-like shithole where most of us are slaves to the local vassal lord? (No, environmentalists aren't feudalists, but the situation they want doesn't create utopia, it requires feudalism to work.)

HEY! Easy now General...the Shire wasn't no shithole...looked like paradise to me actually.
But I do agree that we have to find SOMETHING.

The Shire wasn't a shithole because it was fiction. The real equivalent of the Shire was the world of the Holy Roman Empire or Carolignian France, neither of which fit my defenition of paradise, and to judge by some environmentalists, that's exactly the sort of world they think they want (a Shiretopia) but what they'd get would be a new theocracy.

My opinion on this is that people will wring their hands until civilization in today's form crashes. Then, when we're stuck in a new feudalism because environmentalists shot down every solution and the Church ignored the impending crash, and the businesses have no markets anymore, we'll be so lost in the ashes of the former civilization that we'll never remember what we lost to begin with.

Naomi's documentary "The Corporation" is a must-see for every thinking and caring human on the planet. She nails it!

this is most definately the repiglicans MO--keep 'em scared, very,very scared. If it's not big, bad, spookey Muslims who hate us for our freedoms then it's gasoline prices that are going to destroy the amurikan way of life.

liberalNmoderation @ 24:

General_Rennenkampf @ 15:

Yeah, Bush's Administration is so all-powerful they can control resources in the hands of other religions and people ideologically opposed to them.

Fuck it, if I wanted this sort of conspiracy nonsense, I'dve visited Freep.com or Townhall.com. Bush is too incompetent, and Cheney's too old, and the rest of the damn administration is too damn stupid to pull this conspiracy stuff off.

ANWR is not some panacea, and if people are too damn stupid to actually research it, that's their own damned fault. It's what we get for creating this globalized empire and expecting everyone to lick our boots. Eventually, sometime, they get pissed and lash back.

And WTF are we supposed to do for energy since we can't drill and nobody wants to shellack out the money to research something new? Go back to the days of the horse and buggy, or perhaps since this NIMBY attitude is everywhere and coal isn't an option, to Roman-style transportation?

If oil drilling is bad, coal isn't feasible because it's dirty, nuclear energy is out, what do we us? Bullshit the way the Irish did?

Or do we go back to the happy Medieval days when the Church ruled everything and there was iron-clad caste systems everywhere?

We can't afford to underestimate our enemy. While outwardly appearing ignorant and incompetent, the fact that they have gotten nearly everything they wanted, paints a different picture indeed.
And I'm not sure about nuclear energy being out altogether...there are alot of new technologies in that field now...and while not perfect obviously...it may be able to leapfrog us to the next stage.

At least from the environmentalists I've read, technology that dates to after about 1700 is EVIL OMG IT WILL DESTROY US ALL. Of course, that might be because the environmentalists I read from were the ELF and ALF, but WTFever, they want to drag us into their imagined utopia that would create a dystopia.

Nuclear energy, in a realpolitik sense is the best alternative, particularly with new advances in the technology, but these Luddites are scared of technology despite using computers to spread their message and cars to get there. Hypocrisy isn't merely a wingnut thing.

This can't be right. I keep hearing that drilling in Alaska will solve all of our problems. Next you're going to tell me that Republicans are bald-faced liars willing to sacrifice the well-being of a majority of Americans to benefit the wealthiest 2%.

General_Rennenkampf@21
"The real equivalent of the Shire was the world of the Holy Roman Empire or Carolignian France, neither of which fit my defenition of paradise, and to judge by some environmentalists, that’s exactly the sort of world they think they want (a Shiretopia) but what they’d get would be a new theocracy."

LOL, where do you get this stuff? it is strawman central.

so, not wanting to open more public land to the big oil grab is akin to wanting to go back to the days of charlemagne?

that is an interesting (and amusing) leap.

this is similar language the GOP/oil and coal industries used for decades to tamp down any meaningful clean air laws, clean water laws, increased CAFE standards, etc. the only difference is that you peg the evil environmentalist cabal's desire to move us back to the dark ages, not the stone ages.

and... 'theocracy'... huh? now there is a head scratcher...

The gas price spike is Bushco's backers cashing in before their stooge leaves office. Ms. Klein is right -- the high prices create the economic chaos that gives Bushco the opportunity to grab things they couldn't otherwise grab. Just as 9/11 created the fear and panic allowed Bushco to conflate terrorism and Saddam Hussein and ultimately snatch Iraq's oil.

Samson- @ 31:

General_Rennenkampf@21
"The real equivalent of the Shire was the world of the Holy Roman Empire or Carolignian France, neither of which fit my defenition of paradise, and to judge by some environmentalists, that’s exactly the sort of world they think they want (a Shiretopia) but what they’d get would be a new theocracy."

LOL, where do you get this stuff? it is strawman central.

so, not wanting to open more public land to the big oil grab is akin to wanting to go back to the days of charlemagne?

that is an interesting (and amusing) leap.

this is similar language the GOP/oil and coal industries used for decades to tamp down any meaningful clean air laws, clean water laws, increased CAFE standards, etc. the only difference is that you peg the evil environmentalist cabal's desire to move us back to the dark ages, not the stone ages.

and... 'theocracy'... huh? now there is a head scratcher...

I said, "what replaces oil?" I know damned good and well that oil isn't viable, but what do we use to replace it? Nuclear energy can't work due to ideology to these people, coal's flaws are obvious, and wind and solar energy are not developed enough.

Taking industrial civilization away devastates the secular system of rule, and results in religion becoming the unifier, and I'd rather not live in the North American Tsardom, thanks.

I know oil won't work, but if nuclear energy won't replace it, and coal, wind, and solar energies are all unviable, just what is there?

I'd like to see and have enjoyed watching free market proponents try to talk their way out of the shock doctrine. They can't. The point is that honest free market capitalists and honest economists either try to dismiss it as few bad egg theory (like calling a cloudy a day in Seattle rare) or economic darwinism. It's pathetic. The American elite with major help from the MSM has gone huge lengths not to take things like Katrina, ANWAR, Pinochet, Central America, Iran, Iraq--disasters of the last 30 years more than at face value...., and not look at policy changes as a result. The WTO is a great example. How much WTO MSM press is about dirty hippy anarchists causing trouble instead of the policy bullying?

Love how Naomi prescribes how Katrina could have been done right--green rebuild, and refernce to the New Deal as effective disaster recovery. This should be a major campaign issue. Of course, it isn't anywhere on the radar right now though. Come on already Obama!

17 General_Rennenkampf

Nuclear energy isn't entirely out. The French have been reconstituting nuclear fuel rods for years, so that they're not nearly as radioactive as our waste.

But even if they half or quarter the half-life it probably still be radioactive a couple of thousand years, and no one wants the waste near them.

If someone could develop cold fusion that would be a major breakthrough.

However, in the meantime I still think we need energy baskets filled from several different sources. Solar, wind, geo-thermal, speargrass and oat-shell based ethanol, when it's developed ethanol can be derived from corn husks, not the corn.

In the more immediate period, we could lower tariffs to allow in Brazilian sugar based ethanol. They're itching to sell it to us.

Mechanics, however, are reporting some new kind of mechanical problem in cars that use ethanol.

If it's sugar based ethanol maybe our cars are getting diabetic.

Teddy Phuf @ 37:

I'd like to see and have enjoyed watching free market proponents try to talk their way out of the shock doctrine. They can't. The point is that honest free market capitalists and honest economists either try to dismiss it as few bad egg theory (like calling a cloudy a day in Seattle rare) or economic darwinism. It's pathetic. The American elite with major help from the MSM has gone huge lengths not to take things like Katrina, ANWAR, Pinochet, Central America, Iran, Iraq--disasters of the last 30 years more than at face value...., and not look at policy changes as a result. The WTO is a great example. How much WTO MSM press is about dirty hippy anarchists causing trouble instead of the policy bullying?

Love how Naomi prescribes how Katrina could have been done right--green rebuild, and refernce to the New Deal as effective disaster recovery. This should be a major campaign issue. Of course, it isn't anywhere on the radar right now though. Come on already Obama!

Um, let me ask you this: yes, Capitalism has immense flaws, and as much blood on its hands as Sovietism. What replaces it after it vanishes? I think I know what the answer is, and I can tell it didn't work in Russia or China, and it won't work here either.

Additionally coal isn't entirely unviable, certain grades are, like lignite. There's seems to be interesting results in liquifying coal.

Weaseldog @ 34:

General_Rennenkampf @ 27:

We can't afford to underestimate our enemy. While outwardly appearing ignorant and incompetent, the fact that they have gotten nearly everything they wanted, paints a different picture indeed.
And I'm not sure about nuclear energy being out altogether...there are alot of new technologies in that field now...and while not perfect obviously...it may be able to leapfrog us to the next stage.

At least from the environmentalists I've read, technology that dates to after about 1700 is EVIL OMG IT WILL DESTROY US ALL. Of course, that might be because the environmentalists I read from were the ELF and ALF, but WTFever, they want to drag us into their imagined utopia that would create a dystopia.

Nuclear energy, in a realpolitik sense is the best alternative, particularly with new advances in the technology, but these Luddites are scared of technology despite using computers to spread their message and cars to get there. Hypocrisy isn't merely a wingnut thing.

We only need to build a little over 100 new nuclear power plants every year, just to make up for a 3% loss in oil imports.

And we need to do this in a time when uranium ore shortages are driving costs up.

And natural gas shortages are cutting into uranium processing.

"only 100" nuclear plants a year?

Do you even comprehend what that implies?

ysbaddaden @ 43:

Additionally coal isn't entirely unviable, certain grades are, like lignite. There's seems to be interesting results in liquifying coal.

A liquified coal was used by Germany in WWII to keep its engines running against the USA and USSR and UK. It worked so well, the Allies preferred it to oil.

General_Rennenkampf @ 27:

liberalNmoderation @ 24:

General_Rennenkampf @ 15:

Yeah, Bush's Administration is so all-powerful they can control resources in the hands of other religions and people ideologically opposed to them.

Fuck it, if I wanted this sort of conspiracy nonsense, I'dve visited Freep.com or Townhall.com. Bush is too incompetent, and Cheney's too old, and the rest of the damn administration is too damn stupid to pull this conspiracy stuff off.

ANWR is not some panacea, and if people are too damn stupid to actually research it, that's their own damned fault. It's what we get for creating this globalized empire and expecting everyone to lick our boots. Eventually, sometime, they get pissed and lash back.

And WTF are we supposed to do for energy since we can't drill and nobody wants to shellack out the money to research something new? Go back to the days of the horse and buggy, or perhaps since this NIMBY attitude is everywhere and coal isn't an option, to Roman-style transportation?

If oil drilling is bad, coal isn't feasible because it's dirty, nuclear energy is out, what do we us? Bullshit the way the Irish did?

Or do we go back to the happy Medieval days when the Church ruled everything and there was iron-clad caste systems everywhere?

We can't afford to underestimate our enemy. While outwardly appearing ignorant and incompetent, the fact that they have gotten nearly everything they wanted, paints a different picture indeed.
And I'm not sure about nuclear energy being out altogether...there are alot of new technologies in that field now...and while not perfect obviously...it may be able to leapfrog us to the next stage.

At least from the environmentalists I've read, technology that dates to after about 1700 is EVIL OMG IT WILL DESTROY US ALL. Of course, that might be because the environmentalists I read from were the ELF and ALF, but WTFever, they want to drag us into their imagined utopia that would create a dystopia.

Nuclear energy, in a realpolitik sense is the best alternative, particularly with new advances in the technology, but these Luddites are scared of technology despite using computers to spread their message and cars to get there. Hypocrisy isn't merely a wingnut thing.

Yeah...I think those guys are waaaaaaaaaaaay left...extemism is bad no matter if be right or left.
I think the only way humanity can survive is to come to terms with technology, and use it to benefit the entire planet.
If we don't, then this so called civilization will undoubtedly fail.

Teddy Phuf@37

good post

add to that the 'washington consensus' and how it has led the IMF and world bank to adopt policies that are directly inverse to its original charge.

Not to get into a huge debate, the point point of the shock doctrine is to point out how unfettered capitalism has run amok causing death and destruction. A more balanced Keyensian approach which regulates and makes sure a few don't get rich off the suffering of millions of others is a much healthier and more practical approach. Watch this interview. Is it healthier to take a free market approach to global warming, or is it better to step in and do something proactively?

The response that Capitalism is better than Stalinism or whatever bias you want to add, is missing the entire point.

General_Rennenkampf @ 41:

Teddy Phuf @ 37:

I'd like to see and have enjoyed watching free market proponents try to talk their way out of the shock doctrine. They can't. The point is that honest free market capitalists and honest economists either try to dismiss it as few bad egg theory (like calling a cloudy a day in Seattle rare) or economic darwinism. It's pathetic. The American elite with major help from the MSM has gone huge lengths not to take things like Katrina, ANWAR, Pinochet, Central America, Iran, Iraq--disasters of the last 30 years more than at face value...., and not look at policy changes as a result. The WTO is a great example. How much WTO MSM press is about dirty hippy anarchists causing trouble instead of the policy bullying?

Love how Naomi prescribes how Katrina could have been done right--green rebuild, and refernce to the New Deal as effective disaster recovery. This should be a major campaign issue. Of course, it isn't anywhere on the radar right now though. Come on already Obama!

Um, let me ask you this: yes, Capitalism has immense flaws, and as much blood on its hands as Sovietism. What replaces it after it vanishes? I think I know what the answer is, and I can tell it didn't work in Russia or China, and it won't work here either.

General_Rennenkampf @ 52:

liberalNmoderation @ 49:

General_Rennenkampf @ 27:

liberalNmoderation @ 24:

At least from the environmentalists I've read, technology that dates to after about 1700 is EVIL OMG IT WILL DESTROY US ALL. Of course, that might be because the environmentalists I read from were the ELF and ALF, but WTFever, they want to drag us into their imagined utopia that would create a dystopia.

Nuclear energy, in a realpolitik sense is the best alternative, particularly with new advances in the technology, but these Luddites are scared of technology despite using computers to spread their message and cars to get there. Hypocrisy isn't merely a wingnut thing.

Yeah...I think those guys are waaaaaaaaaaaay left...extemism is bad no matter if be right or left.
I think the only way humanity can survive is to come to terms with technology, and use it to benefit the entire planet.
If we don't, then this so called civilization will undoubtedly fail.

There's no free lunch in nature. What we discover as beneficial today will likely be discovered to be harmful 100 or 200 years from now. Mr. Natural Selection's gonna make us his bitch again sooner or later...

Can't argue that at all.

Additionally, the Shire of the Lord of the Rings series was based on the English not the Carolignian shires.

It was no halcyon days, but by the early 19th century in England it was always presented thus.

Apparently under the Saxons, life was a little more comfortable than under the Normans. However, when the nobles fought among themselves they destroyed the homes and crops of the peasantry, since they payed taxes in grain and stock to their local lord and church, so that was seen as a form if economic warfare.

They were also required to work the farms of their lord and church and often had little time for their own farms.

It was like an early form of tenant farming.

But then by the times of the plague any living worker was valuable and treated better. But the large-scale farming under the Elizabethan period deprived many farmers of their farms where they either became farm hands, or moved to the cities. This eventually led to an industrial class.

But since the earliest history of Christianity in England, there was controversy over what power was of the monarch and which the church. This culminated with King Henry VIII restoring the English church that was violentally suppressed by Norman Roman Catholics in 1066. Than it was the English church's time to oppress the Roman Catholics. It went back and forth like that until William of Orange made England officially Protestant.

My point is one can't say the early period was totally dominated by the Church. The Church was one pole in a multi-pole power structure of local aristocracy, national monarchy, and State Religion.

General_Rennenkampf @ 41:

Teddy Phuf @ 37:

I'd like to see and have enjoyed watching free market proponents try to talk their way out of the shock doctrine. They can't. The point is that honest free market capitalists and honest economists either try to dismiss it as few bad egg theory (like calling a cloudy a day in Seattle rare) or economic darwinism. It's pathetic. The American elite with major help from the MSM has gone huge lengths not to take things like Katrina, ANWAR, Pinochet, Central America, Iran, Iraq--disasters of the last 30 years more than at face value...., and not look at policy changes as a result. The WTO is a great example. How much WTO MSM press is about dirty hippy anarchists causing trouble instead of the policy bullying?

Love how Naomi prescribes how Katrina could have been done right--green rebuild, and refernce to the New Deal as effective disaster recovery. This should be a major campaign issue. Of course, it isn't anywhere on the radar right now though. Come on already Obama!

Um, let me ask you this: yes, Capitalism has immense flaws, and as much blood on its hands as Sovietism. What replaces it after it vanishes? I think I know what the answer is, and I can tell it didn't work in Russia or China, and it won't work here either.

Capitalism, according to Marx should be replaced once it runs its curse with socialism.

The reason why the USSR et al did not work was for the most part, that Russia jumped from a feudal/Gilded society straight into a communist experiment. Which even Marx had stipulated that it wouldn't work, and it didn't.

54 liberalNmoderation

I've been worried for the last 7.5 years we're turning into a fascist state.

ysbaddaden @ 61:

54 liberalNmoderation

I've been worried for the last 7.5 years we're turning into a fascist state.

You can quit worrying now. It's here.

Sure lets drill ANWR..and sell the oil to china! yeah thats the ticket!!

ysbaddaden @ 57:

Additionally, the Shire of the Lord of the Rings series was based on the English not the Carolignian shires.

It was no halcyon days, but by the early 19th century in England it was always presented thus.

Apparently under the Saxons, life was a little more comfortable than under the Normans. However, when the nobles fought among themselves they destroyed the homes and crops of the peasantry, since they payed taxes in grain and stock to their local lord and church, so that was seen as a form if economic warfare.

They were also required to work the farms of their lord and church and often had little time for their own farms.

It was like an early form of tenant farming.

But then by the times of the plague any living worker was valuable and treated better. But the large-scale farming under the Elizabethan period deprived many farmers of their farms where they either became farm hands, or moved to the cities. This eventually led to an industrial class.

But since the earliest history of Christianity in England, there was controversy over what power was of the monarch and which the church. This culminated with King Henry VIII restoring the English church that was violentally suppressed by Norman Roman Catholics in 1066. Than it was the English church's time to oppress the Roman Catholics. It went back and forth like that until William of Orange made England officially Protestant.

My point is one can't say the early period was totally dominated by the Church. The Church was one pole in a multi-pole power structure of local aristocracy, national monarchy, and State Religion.

There ya go...with your "facts" and "logic"!
Seriously though, thanks for droppin some science yo!

Leadership @ 1:

Like the American Health care System, the ruling elite want to treat symptoms, not root causes.
We can be sure that drilling will be the answer instead of new and renewable sources of energy.

The ruling elite could care less about Americans(ex.Katrina,Sub-prime bailouts for banks,not borrowers,Iraq war,etc...)The ruling elite want to fleece us,and that`s it.They`re trying to get at Social Security,and already have made inroads into Medicare.The ruling elite are lying scum. I don`t believe a word they say.
Thanks,John, for a great post.I`ll be looking for the chat with Naomi Klein next Wed..Loved her first book No LogoShe`s a happenin` lady.

ysbaddaden @ 70:

54 liberalNmoderation

Thanks to Obama's vote yesterday for FISA we're closer to fascism.

59 The Dude

Additionally, Russia wasn't Communist after the Red Russians overthrew the White. It became a system where the Party was the Vanguard of the Revolution, and a new elite structure was establised above the Proletariat, who under Communism would be running things from smaller local cells.

However, centralized economic planning didn't help. Ideally in capitalism, if one corporations makes bad decisions, they are pushed out by the Invisible Hand of the Marketplace, without threatening the overall economy. Now with corporationism in the place of capitalism, they just call for a government bailout or they can blow out their section of the economy, like in our current sub-prime loan crisis.

That was Lenin's idea, though. Instead of a broad mass revolt like Marx called for, Lenin and his small minority created the USSR. Considering how Russia was prior to Sovietization, I'm not so sure that USSR-era Russia improved at all from the Tsars, but the average Russian considered themselves better off.

General_Rennenkampf @ 68:

The Dude @ 59:

General_Rennenkampf @ 41:

Teddy Phuf @ 37:

Um, let me ask you this: yes, Capitalism has immense flaws, and as much blood on its hands as Sovietism. What replaces it after it vanishes? I think I know what the answer is, and I can tell it didn't work in Russia or China, and it won't work here either.

Capitalism, according to Marx should be replaced once it runs its curse with socialism.

The reason why the USSR et al did not work was for the most part, that Russia jumped from a feudal/Gilded society straight into a communist experiment. Which even Marx had stipulated that it wouldn't work, and it didn't.

One can argue that Marx's ideas have happened in Europe, to an extent.

But aside from Russia, no European state is even close to the size of the US. Socialism has enough problems in areas the size of Sweden and France, it would have even more in a nation that's as damn big as the US.

The EU is larger in population than the US. And they have managed to implement a socialist approach which has now surpassed the US of A in economic output. Yes it has its issues and problems... but there is a real danger for Americans to still deny the EU and its successes.

liberalNmoderation @ 74:

General_Rennenkampf @ 62:

liberalNmoderation @ 54:

General_Rennenkampf @ 41:

I can answer that General...It's fascism, not communism. After all, what is fascism, but a merging of corporate and state power coupled with a belligerent foreign policy?
Sound familiar?

Teddy Phuf @ 53:

Not to get into a huge debate, the point point of the shock doctrine is to point out how unfettered capitalism has run amok causing death and destruction. A more balanced Keyensian approach which regulates and makes sure a few don't get rich off the suffering of millions of others is a much healthier and more practical approach. Watch this interview. Is it healthier to take a free market approach to global warming, or is it better to step in and do something proactively?

The response that Capitalism is better than Stalinism or whatever bias you want to add, is missing the entire point.

General_Rennenkampf @ 41:

@ Teddy Phuf:

Keyensianism created the prosperity of the 50s and 60s, it was when we went to Rightist economics that it all went south, I won't argue with you there. Free Markets create Carnegies and Morgans, not a healthy economy. If you thought I was defending laissez-faire, I sincerely apologize.

@liberalNmoderation:

Oh, yeah, fascism worked so well the last time it was tried. Considering what fascism caused, and how much Hitler and Mussolini had to work to implement it in a relatively small area (prior to WWII, that is), I have a healthy dose of skepticism that an attempt to create an American Nazi Germany or Mussolini-era Italy will crash in burn more due to the sheer size of the land combined with totalitarian ideology. What "worked" for small states like Germany and Italy won't work so well in a large nation like the US.

You misunderstand me...I am by no means advocating fascism!
I'm just saying...with the current political climate it seems fascism is rapidly becoming closer to reality than alot of people realize.
I'd much rather have some form of socialism.

As would I, at least socialism states we're all supposed to be equal, fascism doesn't even bother to say that.

Rachel Maddow, Lara Logan, Naomi Klein- women who are not afraid of speaking
the truth. Keep it coming and bring on more just like them!

General_Rennenkampf @ 75:

liberalNmoderation @ 74:

General_Rennenkampf @ 62:

liberalNmoderation @ 54:
Teddy Phuf @ 53:

@ Teddy Phuf:

Keyensianism created the prosperity of the 50s and 60s, it was when we went to Rightist economics that it all went south, I won't argue with you there. Free Markets create Carnegies and Morgans, not a healthy economy. If you thought I was defending laissez-faire, I sincerely apologize.

@liberalNmoderation:

Oh, yeah, fascism worked so well the last time it was tried. Considering what fascism caused, and how much Hitler and Mussolini had to work to implement it in a relatively small area (prior to WWII, that is), I have a healthy dose of skepticism that an attempt to create an American Nazi Germany or Mussolini-era Italy will crash in burn more due to the sheer size of the land combined with totalitarian ideology. What "worked" for small states like Germany and Italy won't work so well in a large nation like the US.

You misunderstand me...I am by no means advocating fascism!
I'm just saying...with the current political climate it seems fascism is rapidly becoming closer to reality than alot of people realize.
I'd much rather have some form of socialism.

As would I, at least socialism states we're all supposed to be equal, fascism doesn't even bother to say that.

Fascism is to me...by far the worst of the isms.

what people need to keep in mind is that, in our capitalist world system, since we have freed capital from constraint it will flow out of the US.

capital is neither loyal nor patriotic, and as long as other regions employ labor at pennies on the dollar, ignore environmental concerns, etc. we will see the continual transfer of wealth. hence, the need for renegotiations of trade deals.

that said, in the world economy, there is the likelihood that the US, over time, will gradually shift from a core country into a semi-peripheral country.

and, we need to drop the notion that china is a communist country.

79 liberalNmoderation

Fascism is to me…by far the worst of the isms.
____________________________________________________________

Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism?

General_Rennenkampf @ 76:

The Dude @ 73:

General_Rennenkampf @ 68:

The Dude @ 59:

One can argue that Marx's ideas have happened in Europe, to an extent.

But aside from Russia, no European state is even close to the size of the US. Socialism has enough problems in areas the size of Sweden and France, it would have even more in a nation that's as damn big as the US.

The EU is larger in population than the US. And they have managed to implement a socialist approach which has now surpassed the US of A in economic output. Yes it has its issues and problems... but there is a real danger for Americans to still deny the EU and its successes.

True, the EU is larger in population, but all Europe united would still be smaller than just the US South, and Europe has a much denser population. The EU has very real achievements, but the area of the US was more my concern than the population. Europe (aside from the island nations and Scandanavia) is all one region, as well. The US has Alaska and Hawaii, both of whom are well-a-ways away. The population wouldn't be the issue so much as the sheer damn size of this nation.

... then I submit to you; Canada, which is larger than the US. Or Australia which has a lower population density than the US.

82 General_Rennenkampf

The trouble with Dominionism is with their emphasis on the Biblical basis for law, they would put women back into the kitchens, execute women who have abortions, doctors that provide them, gays and non-Christians...

And even worse

Make us all eat Domino's Pizza.

The Dude @ 85:

General_Rennenkampf @ 76:

The Dude @ 73:

General_Rennenkampf @ 68:

The EU is larger in population than the US. And they have managed to implement a socialist approach which has now surpassed the US of A in economic output. Yes it has its issues and problems... but there is a real danger for Americans to still deny the EU and its successes.

True, the EU is larger in population, but all Europe united would still be smaller than just the US South, and Europe has a much denser population. The EU has very real achievements, but the area of the US was more my concern than the population. Europe (aside from the island nations and Scandanavia) is all one region, as well. The US has Alaska and Hawaii, both of whom are well-a-ways away. The population wouldn't be the issue so much as the sheer damn size of this nation.

... then I submit to you; Canada, which is larger than the US. Or Australia which has a lower population density than the US.

Again, Canada's population is extremely concentrated, mostly in the about 25-30 mile corridor north of the border. Australia's population is, as well, with most living on the Murray River.

Whereas with the US, you have huge numbers of people on coasts 2,000 miles away and not-inconsiderable numbers in the East, and and big cities in the West that are completely isolated (like Vegas, for instance.) The comparison is imperfect, Russia is the best analogy by far.

ysbaddaden @ 83:

79 liberalNmoderation

Fascism is to me…by far the worst of the isms.
____________________________________________________________

Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism?

Quoting Ferris Bueller for a second:

"I do have a test today. that wasn't bullshit. It's on European socialism. I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So who cares if they're socialists? They could be fascist anarchists. It still doesn't change the fact that I don't own a car. Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in The Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people."

90 General_Rennenkampf

Not quite, Jews probably wouldn't be allowed to live in a Dominionist state (non-Christian).

Additionally, I forget the name of the Norman law which forbade anyone other than a warden to carry bows and arrows, or to hunt on the king's land, or graze your animals on the king's land, with punishments like whippings, gougings amputations of ears and hands and burnings. This was 1066 so we're talking about 500 years ago.

It's my understanding the Roman Catholic missionaries were burning people alive for refusing to convert up into the 19th century in South America (how late I'm not sure.)

And because of my interest in the macabre, it interested me to learn that Parliament had to pass a law in 1830 against burying suicides at crossroads, and driving a wooden stake through their heart.

General_Rennenkampf @ 89:

The Dude @ 85:

General_Rennenkampf @ 76:

The Dude @ 73:

True, the EU is larger in population, but all Europe united would still be smaller than just the US South, and Europe has a much denser population. The EU has very real achievements, but the area of the US was more my concern than the population. Europe (aside from the island nations and Scandanavia) is all one region, as well. The US has Alaska and Hawaii, both of whom are well-a-ways away. The population wouldn't be the issue so much as the sheer damn size of this nation.

... then I submit to you; Canada, which is larger than the US. Or Australia which has a lower population density than the US.

Again, Canada's population is extremely concentrated, mostly in the about 25-30 mile corridor north of the border. Australia's population is, as well, with most living on the Murray River.

Whereas with the US, you have huge numbers of people on coasts 2,000 miles away and not-inconsiderable numbers in the East, and and big cities in the West that are completely isolated (like Vegas, for instance.) The comparison is imperfect, Russia is the best analogy by far.

Hum, Russia's population is also heavily concentrated in the West. And Canada shares the same continental width with you, and they have to cover the same or larger distances between major population centers in either coast.

Anyhow, I fail to see your point, so please nit pick away...

I still think that population densities play a far bigger role than distances. You may have had a point over a century ago, but with current transportation and communication infrastructures distances in social phenomena are becoming relatively less significant.

I forgot

What's the subject?

General_Rennenkampf @ 82:

liberalNmoderation @ 79:

General_Rennenkampf @ 75:

liberalNmoderation @ 74:

As would I, at least socialism states we're all supposed to be equal, fascism doesn't even bother to say that.

Fascism is to me...by far the worst of the isms.

To me, Dominionism is by far the worst, because it offers a panacea to make people ignore its brutality that the others don't.

Not familiar with that particular ism...I'll have to read up on that one...but it damn sure doesn't sound very fun at all.

95 The Dude

I understand Karl Marx and Friderich Engels (the biggest duo until Rogers and Hammerstein) were living in England at the time they wrote Das Kapitol and .............

So they were writing about England, and Western Industrial Europe with their higher urban densities. Of course England is actually a rather small island, and they were only then becoming more of a colonizing country building their empire.

Places like Russia were less industrial, more agrarian, and spread-out, so it wasn't the sort of place Marx would've picked first. The English had some guaranteed rights dating back to the Magna Carta and later documents, whereas Russia was very feudal.

OK...just looked up dominionism...and uh...no thanks!

ysbaddaden@101

indeed

also, marx/engels wrote about the industrial worker, as different from the peasant. maoism differed from marxism in its peasant-centrism.

and *doink* the imperial powers really created the situation that brought the rise of mao and the draconian tactics he urged the chinese peasants to partake in.

Wasn't much of a fan (not frothing at the mouth anyhow) of "No Logo" but "The Shock Doctrine" was right up my alley. Bought 3 hardcover copies (two as gifts) with the idea that if I tell two friends and if they tell two friends and if they... you get the picture. I just wish that she'd get a better editor next time for the occasional typos scattered throughout the book. Grrrrr.... big pet peeve of mine for published reading.

Maggie @ 72:

My husband never reads books. After seeing Naomi on the Tavis Smiley Show, he went right out and bought a copy of her book And is READING it! Some good writer, huh?

Sounds like me.

btw: are you from Seattle?

Today the simian asshole reportedly told the G8 summit, "Goodbye from the world's No. 1 polluter." Or something to that effect. It was meant as a private joke, but it's glaringly true. He won't care if the entire planet melts.

I hate you, George Bush. I hope you get some sort of wasting tropical disease at your jungle redoubt in the Nazi haven of Paraguay.

D.G. Bowman @ 111:

Today the simian asshole reportedly told the G8 summit, "Goodbye from the world's No. 1 polluter." Or something to that effect. It was meant as a private joke, but it's glaringly true. He won't care if the entire planet melts.

I hate you, George Bush. I hope you get some sort of wasting tropical disease at your jungle redoubt in the Nazi haven of Paraguay.

Yeah! Like a severe case of crotch rot!
And I mean SEVERE!!!

General_Rennenkampf @ 114:

The Dude @ 95:

General_Rennenkampf @ 89:

The Dude @ 85:

Again, Canada's population is extremely concentrated, mostly in the about 25-30 mile corridor north of the border. Australia's population is, as well, with most living on the Murray River.

Whereas with the US, you have huge numbers of people on coasts 2,000 miles away and not-inconsiderable numbers in the East, and and big cities in the West that are completely isolated (like Vegas, for instance.) The comparison is imperfect, Russia is the best analogy by far.

Hum, Russia's population is also heavily concentrated in the West. And Canada shares the same continental width with you, and they have to cover the same or larger distances between major population centers in either coast.

Anyhow, I fail to see your point, so please nit pick away...

I still think that population densities play a far bigger role than distances. You may have had a point over a century ago, but with current transportation and communication infrastructures distances in social phenomena are becoming relatively less significant.

Except that Canada's population is all within one small contained area. Canada's north is not very settled, certaintly not in comparison with what we've done in the West.

The Canadian population is also much smaller than the US, despite having a bigger nation, per area. If Canada had some 400 million as opposed to our 300 million and had settled more of its land it would be a fairer comparison.

My point is that Russia is about equivalent to the US in terms of things like population and density, but the US has had less of an equal-opportunity authoritarian streak than Russia.

Whoops, hit "Submit Comment," too soon. Despite the different cultures of the US and Russia, it becomes clear that socialism over a huge, diverse area becomes...problematic. Socialism over an area the size of the US would probably end up resembling USSR-type Communism simply due to the land area, not due to any other reason.

I found the following information - copied and pasted from ( http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/ )

Why are we paying so much for gas and fuel in this country? Things you might be interested in.

1. Oil Permits Requests To Drill Are Way Up Over The Last 5 Years.

http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Release/20080529.cfm

2. Refineries Have Been Bought By The Big 10 Oil Companies and The Little Guys Have Been Forced Out. What was

around 35% Owned By the Top 10 is Now 56%. http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_e...s.cfm?ID=11829

3. Supplies are being trickled out to lead to a false sense of Huge Demand and None available.

4. 70,000 Barrels are now available each and every month on the open market because we have stopped adding to the

Strategic Reserves. (Were at 95%+ Full)

5. Only One New Refinery has been built in 30 Years. True, but upgrades are always going on to existing and permits

have been issued to build more ... lack of interest in building new refineries (artificially keeping supplies down) is the

key as to why Oil Cos are making profits 2 Times as much as they were in 2001 compared to 2005. (80% Increases in

profits. for those 4 years.)

6. Some in Congress want to rescind permits if they are not used.

http://www.dnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art.....;/80612033/1002 Exxon has had access to natural gas 25% of the countries

reserves in Alaska for 25 years and has sat on tapping it. Lawsuits have even been filed to get them to tap the

resources to no avail.

7. So what about the unused leases? It took some digging to find that information. Here is a map of the current leases

in the Gulf of Mexico. All of the empty green squares are current leases held by the oil companies. They are empty

because there is no exploration or production. The squares outlined in red are new leases the DoI auctioned in March.

You will note that there are a lot of empty green squares. [PDF]

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/lsesale/Visual1.pdf

8. Some have argued that oil companies purchase and hold on to leases to claim them as an asset to boost stock prices.

But they don't abuse those leases, right? Well there is currently a battle in Alaska. It seems Exxon, in partnership with

other oil companies, had a lease at Point Thomson for 31 years and produced no gas or oil. Point Thomson is believed

to hold 25% of the known natural gas reserves in the state. When Alaska tried to reclaim the leases to try to get others

to develop the area, Exxon sued.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=104&sid=1402840

9. 3 Myths and Facts About Oil Companies: http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_e...s.cfm?ID=11829Gordon: Oil

companies should use drilling permits or lose them

http://www.dnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A...1/80612033/1002

WASHINGTON – In an effort to provide relief to consumers struggling to cope with high gas prices, U.S. Rep. Bart

Gordon is urging Congress to require oil companies to use their drilling permits or lose them.

[Snip. Site Monitor]

Louisiana Oil Permits -

All the way back to 1991 https://www.loga.la/AM/Template.cfm?Section...;ContentID=2665

All the way back to 1956 http://dnr.louisiana.gov/sec/execdiv/techa...res/table22.htm

Nebraska Oil Permits -

http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/45a.html

Myths and Facts about Oil Refineries in the United States

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_...es.cfm?ID=11829

The Bush administration and some members of Congress blame environmental rules for causing strains on refining

capacity, prompting shortages and driving up prices. But in reality, it is uncompetitive actions by a handful of

companies with large control over our nation’s gas markets that is directly causing these high prices.

[Snip. Site Monitor]

http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Release/20080529.cfm

WASHINGTON (May 29, 2008) – More than 44 million acres of public lands are leased for oil and gas development,

according to a new Wilderness Society analysis of Interior Department data. The analysis points to an explosion of

drilling on federal lands, with 7,124 drilling permits (APDs) issued in 2007, a new record for the Bush Administration.

[Snip. Site Monitor]

So what about the unused leases? It took some digging to find that information. Here is a map of the current leases in

the Gulf of Mexico. All of the empty green squares are current leases held by the oil companies. They are empty

because there is no exploration or production. The squares outlined in red are new leases the DoI auctioned in March.

You will note that there are a lot of empty green squares. [PDF]

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/lsesale/Visual1.pdf

Some have argued that oil companies purchase and hold on to leases to claim them as an asset to boost stock prices.

But they don't abuse those leases, right?

Well there is currently a battle in Alaska. It seems Exxon, in partnership with other oil companies, had a lease at Point

Thomson for 31 years and produced no gas or oil. Point Thomson is believed to hold 25% of the known natural gas

reserves in the state. When Alaska tried to reclaim the leases to try to get others to develop the area, Exxon sued.

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=104&sid=1402840

"Oil supply is outpacing demand growth. Inventories have been building since the beginning of the year.”

The US government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) in its most recent monthly Short Term Energy Outlook

report concluded that US oil demand is expected to decline by 190,000 b/d in 2008. That is mainly owing to the

deepening economic recession. Chinese consumption, the EIA says, far from exploding, is expected to rise this year by

only 400,000 barrels a day. That is hardly the "surging oil demand" blamed on China in the media. Last year, China

imported 3.2 million barrels per day, and its estimated usage was around 7 million b/d total. The US, by contrast,

consumes around 20.7 million b/d.

[Snip. Site Monitor]

[LoudPatriot- please shorten up your future posts. We edit for brevity- it's in the commenting policy. Lengthy comments hog a lot of bandwidth, and bandwidth isn't cheap. The links and a short snippet from the aricles does fine. Thank you. Site Monitor]

euthyfro @ 118:

All of these disasters and shocks & the work of Ms. Klein illustrate one simple fact: Humanity, as it outgrew feudalism, has outgrown Capitalism. Either it ends or our species will.

Again, what replaces it? Keyensian economics? Marxism? Fascism?

Saying it must end is not enough. Saying what would replace it would be at least a better thing.

But oil prices are being artificially driven up; there's no shortage that should result in such inflated prices. The Bushies and their cohorts are keeping prices high so that they can use Americans' fear and feelings of emergency to push through their desire to do all the environmental damage they want. And they know that drilling in pristine environmental areas won't solve the problems they claim exist, or even alleviate them. They really just want to thumb their noses at those they consider liberal or politically correct by destroying as much as they can, in exactly the areas that it would be most immoral to do so. It's Carl Rove's "go for their strong point" strategy: The sensible part of the human world wants the most pristine, vulnerable environmental areas protected, so right-wing bullies like the Bushies target them for destruction, just so that they can laugh at the suffering and anguish they cause. I was raised by heartless, ruthless right-wingers who behave in exactly that fashion, reveling in causing suffering. What's the popular American expression? "Because I can."

right on! @ 23:

Naomi's documentary "The Corporation" is a must-see for every thinking and caring human on the planet. She nails it!

Um, The Corporation is not "Naomi's documentary." She was in it, but it was directed by Mark Achbar and based on a book by Joel Bakan.
BTW. is it just me or is Naomi Klein is totally hot.

Naomi Klein...one of Canada's brightest exports.
If only America was bright enough to listen.