The Most Important Issue

[Makalakumu]

In 2004 Presidential campaign there has been a lot of rhetoric and promises thrown about. This is an election year and it is normal. In the end, almost all of it is inconsequential. History will not highlight what our candidates said about, education, health care, abortion, gun control, preservation of wilderness, or the economy (to a certain extent). This is because all of these issues swirl around one, the War on Terror and the beliefs and policies driving it.

The War on Terror and the President's handling of it is the biggest issue of this campaign. In fact, in my opinion, NOTHING else matters. We are looking at a spreading global conflict that directly involves and is largely driven by radical corporatism.

The President's policies and beliefs can be summed up in the Plan for the New American Century. Below is a list of the people who created this plan late in 1997...

Elliott Abrams,Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, Ken Lay, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz.

This is the neoconservative thinktank that took control of our country. This is a list of the most important people in our country as far as the Bush Administration is concerned. This is a list of people who stand to benefit most from the re-election of George W. Bush.

The express purpose of this group is to "challenge regimes hostile to our economic interests and values". This is a blatant admission by these folks. They plan to use the US government and our military to further THEIR interests. If you study the business deals done before and after this administration came to power, this becomes abudantly clear. Halliburton is a perfect example of the above and it is not unique. Enron, Unocal, Bechtel, United Defense, the Carlyle Group, Bilderbergers…ect. The list goes on and on.

The entire War on Terror can be summed up by a quote from Norman Podhoretz. "Iraq is Act Two in a five act play called World War Four. I expect it to last longer then the Cold War."

It is my firm belief that these policies will destroy our country. They will bankrupt the federal government, they will waste our children in endless fighting, they will destroy any chance for this world to come together in peace. In the end, this war machine will destroy the middle class and enrich those who created it. History will look back at this election and it will be noted as a turning point.

President Bush, in the words of the people who back him, is waging World War Four. President Kerry rejects this. The choice is simple.

Vote for it if you wish. Be prepared to pay their price. I will NEVER pay it.

upnorthkyosa :asian:

 

[kenpo tiger]

President Bush, in the words of the people who back him, is waging World War Four. President Kerry rejects this. The choice is simple.

I assume you wrote that purposely. Interesting, thought-provoking post. Who knows what's going to happen between now and November.

 

[michaeledward]

Who knows what's going to happen between now and November.

Apparently, Vice President Cheney knows. Didn't he say that if Senator Kerry is elected president that al Qaeda was going to strike the United States.

From this statement, I draw the following conclusions.

1) Vice President Cheney is 100% certain that al Qaeda is not going to strike the United States between now and the first Tuesday in November.
2) If President Bush is re-elected, al Qaeda is not going to strike the United States at least until the next election, November 2008. (I am seriously considering changing my vote.)
3) If Senator Kerry is re-elected, al Qaeda will strike the United States during his term.

I see that statement as a Win-Win-Win for the Bush Cheney campaign.

If there is attack before the election, Americans will rally around the President ... thus, he is re-elected.
If Kerry wins the election and there is an attack, the Republicans can say "I told you so."
If Kerry does not win the election, it might be because Cheney has successfully turned up the fear dial.

Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

Difficult as it is for me to resist signing onto the work of any brain trust that includes Dan Quayle (I also wonder how Fukuyama feels about his, "end of history," now), there's this:

"The political triumph of the bourgeois revolution consists in spreading the state of siege of the city-machine...over the totality of the national territory." --Paul Virilio, "Speed and Politics."

The extraordinary thing to me about these conservatives is the revolutionary nature of what they're doing. But then, that's capitalism for ya.

 

[Makalakumu]

The Cold War lasted for 45 years. This is the new version, I guess.

The price, in this case, is our children. Do we want to send them to die in the sand for the economic interests of those listed above?

Like I said, not much else matters anymore.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Thought-provoking post, upnorth. Thanks.

 

[AaronLucia]

The thing we all must remember is that American's are not willing to pay 10 dollars a quart for oil or gas..

So unfortunately we have to be active in obtaining it, war or not.

 

[Makalakumu]

The thing we all must remember is that American's are not willing to pay 10 dollars a quart for oil or gas..

So unfortunately we have to be active in obtaining it, war or not.

So, let me get this straight, the blood of my daughter (and your children if you have them) is worth cheap gasoline? Or is it always someone else's kids who are dying? Everytime I read something like this, I nearly have an apoplexy.

Just think about it Aaron

upnorthkyosa :asian:

 

[Tgace]

So, let me get this straight, the blood of my daughter (and your children if you have them) is worth cheap gasoline? Or is it always someone else's kids who are dying? Everytime I read something like this, I nearly have an apoplexy.

Just think about it Aaron

upnorthkyosa :asian:

All the same, distasteful as it is, there is an element of truth to it. Isnt there? If cutting off our oil supply could destroy our economy isnt that something to consider? The real solution is alternative energy sources, but until then......

Thats the joy of leadership I suppose. If you try to secure resources, you are in bed with corporate interests and/or destroying the environment. When gas hits $5.00 a gallon and the economy heads into the dumpster, the nations going to hell in a handbasket on your watch....thats sympathy for either party when theyre in charge. Its always your fault, even when the problem began 2 terms before yours and will last 2 terms after. Not an easy job.

 

[loki09789]

Up,

Also consider trivializing the impact of petroleum prices on the global economy, national economy and local economy. One of the other impacts of these rises in petroleum prices was transportation (airline down to courier services) that moved anything from people to produce. ALL the prices are going to flux. Symbiosis in economics.

Also consider that Petroleum is a raw material in so many products that, literally, we could not live without in some cases. If the cost of medical procedures or safety standards/materials goes through the roof because the petroleum based materials are twice as expensive because the barrel price is driven by the Mid East Market then what would that do to the cost, quality and standard of life for any of our children.

I don't see a lot of people in the USA willing to give up the standard of living so that we can conserve or boycott mid east petroleum control. I also don't see people trying to understand the global and GENERAL impact of petroleum prices and how it will influence other areas of our lives.

If you don't want Vibram soles, certain medical devices and TONS of technologies to sky rocket in cost because they rely on petroleum based materials, then people, average citizens have to be willing to think beyond the "blood for oil" mentallity and they don't because they are complaining the whole time they are filling up their oversized, impractical SUV's with gas.

It is easy to flame Bush or any past POTUS because they have been there and done that. Kerry has not been there yet. There is no guarentee that he will prove any better/worse than Bush or anyone else. Hell, he came back from 'Nam and "tossed his medals" but conveniently picked them back up again when a 'decorated war vet' image would help him get elected...how do we know he won't flip flop, change policies or the like where he elected to POTUS? We don't.

The choice is far from simple, as per every other election, I get the feeling it isn't the "best candidate" I am trying to choose so much as the "least inept" that I am picking.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Up,

Also consider trivializing the impact of petroleum prices on the global economy, national economy and local economy. One of the other impacts of these rises in petroleum prices was transportation (airline down to courier services) that moved anything from people to produce. ALL the prices are going to flux. Symbiosis in economics.

Also consider that Petroleum is a raw material in so many products that, literally, we could not live without in some cases. If the cost of medical procedures or safety standards/materials goes through the roof because the petroleum based materials are twice as expensive because the barrel price is driven by the Mid East Market then what would that do to the cost, quality and standard of life for any of our children.

I don't see a lot of people in the USA willing to give up the standard of living so that we can conserve or boycott mid east petroleum control. I also don't see people trying to understand the global and GENERAL impact of petroleum prices and how it will influence other areas of our lives.

If you don't want Vibram soles, certain medical devices and TONS of technologies to sky rocket in cost because they rely on petroleum based materials, then people, average citizens have to be willing to think beyond the "blood for oil" mentallity and they don't because they are complaining the whole time they are filling up their oversized, impractical SUV's with gas.

It is easy to flame Bush or any past POTUS because they have been there and done that. Kerry has not been there yet. There is no guarentee that he will prove any better/worse than Bush or anyone else. Hell, he came back from 'Nam and "tossed his medals" but conveniently picked them back up again when a 'decorated war vet' image would help him get elected...how do we know he won't flip flop, change policies or the like where he elected to POTUS? We don't.

The choice is far from simple, as per every other election, I get the feeling it isn't the "best candidate" I am trying to choose so much as the "least inept" that I am picking.

Exactamundo. They're all first and last politicians and will promise anything to be elected. Then reality sets in. To correct the messes of the previous regime requires at least two to three terms, and I don't know that Dubya is the man to correct his own mess. I do like Laura, but she's still too Stepford and not enough Hillary. (Okay - bring it on!) Teresa is better in that regard - and probably the brains behind Kerry. KT

 

[Phoenix44]

The War On Terrorism would probably be the #1 issue--though the economy is a VERY close second.

But Iraq never should have been the #1 target. Bin Laden should have been--actually, he should have been our #1 target BEFORE 9/11. And our second priority should have been securing our own borders, which we haven't done.

Randi Rhodes of Air America, I think, made a good assessment--that the so-called war on terror keeps us occupied so that the neo-cons can do what they're REALLY interested in, which is stealing.

 

[Makalakumu]

A lot of you guys think that I'm trivialising America's dependence on foreign oil...let me tell you a story. This summer I worked with a physics professor who designed a probe that went into the atmosphere of Titan. Now he is working on fuel cells. I pesonally worked on a fuel cell that could power a car and it ran off of ethanol.

The technology is out there. Germany has switched 25% of their economy over to hydrogen. They generate 25% of their electricity from wind and the highest wind environment they have is class two. We have class 4 environments near my home and we have class 6 and 8 on the east coast. For every numerical rise in class size, the current technology is able to generate 8 times the amount of energy.

That is why I think its so sad that we are spending all of this money to keep the past alive. Our dependence on fossil fuels is only going to demand more and more government intervention. How much of our government treasure and more importantly, our childrens lives, are we going to spend before we turn our eyes to the future.

I hope this provides a little more perspective regarding my position.

upnorthkyosa

 

[PeachMonkey]

The 10,000 pound elephant in the room with the discussions of hydrogen economies is just how we'll generate all of that hydrogen.

It takes a pretty massive amount of energy to crack hydrogren from water in the quantities needed to power fuel-cell vehicles and the like; this energy has to come from somewhere, whether fossil fuels, nuclear power, wind, solar, or the like. We're not really gaining much if we're still burning coal, natural gas, and fuel oil to produce all the hydrogen

Switching to hydrogen power for many uses has some compelling upsides but the production of the material itself still needs to be addressed.

 

[PeachMonkey]

I do like Laura, but she's still too Stepford and not enough Hillary.

I certainly hope no one decides which candidate to vote for based on their spouse...

Teresa is better in that regard - and probably the brains behind Kerry.

How do you figure? Teresa and John aren't even normally on the same side of the political spectrum -- and most of Kerry's career took place before they were married.

 

[Darksoul]

-The great ideas that this nation is founded on versus the capitalist society. Is it a case of being our own worst enemy? Business and money drive the system, the machine, but the end product isn't always better quality of life for Americans. I don't think any of us are surprised by the business/gov't that runs the country. Most of us aren't happy with it, and yet nothing changes either. A lower standard of living? Desires versus needs. If possible, would you steer the nation away from capitalism? Would it solve anything if people had different goals in life? Humans are bent on doing more, having more, earning more, etc. I not sure if there is a point where humans could just be satisfied with what they have.

A---)

 

[Makalakumu]

The 10,000 pound elephant in the room with the discussions of hydrogen economies is just how we'll generate all of that hydrogen.

It takes a pretty massive amount of energy to crack hydrogren from water in the quantities needed to power fuel-cell vehicles and the like; this energy has to come from somewhere, whether fossil fuels, nuclear power, wind, solar, or the like. We're not really gaining much if we're still burning coal, natural gas, and fuel oil to produce all the hydrogen

Switching to hydrogen power for many uses has some compelling upsides but the production of the material itself still needs to be addressed.

Peach, using microfilter tech, ethonal can be hydrolized with a very slight electric charge. The H2 is then collected and used for fuel cells. The current generation of fuel cells are two times more efficient then the internal combustion engine. Fuel cell technology is very close to breaking out in this country...in a real free market economy, we would already see it.

 

[deadhand31]

Upnorth, great point here. Yes, we are looking to breakthrough with fuel cells. If I remember correctly, Bush set an initiative forth to try to expand fuel cell technology within the automotive industry.

That aside, let's look at ethanol. Yes, it can hydrolize very easily. But where does ethanol come from? Right now, I believe that it's refined from corn. Well, what goes into growing corn? Lots of water, farmwork, tractors, trucks, combines, etc. etc. etc. All of these currently use petroleum products. If we are to be completely weaned from oil, all of these machines will have to be replaced. If these are to run fuel cells, then we'll need to make sure we can get enough hydrogen to power farms. Now, I don't think we can get this fuel cell environment running right away. I do believe we have to get rid of our dependency on foreign oil. To do this, we would need to try to up our domestic production, and this could be facilitated by using oil and natural gas reserves that enviromentalist make a big stink about using. When oil was found off the coast of Florida, what happened? The environmental loonies stopped it. When we could put forth an initiative to tap a huge oil supply in Alaska, while only utilizing land the size of a small golf course, the environmental whackos stepped in. (This land is far from a pristine paradise. Ask anyone who lives in Alaska and has been in that area, it's a marshy, inhospitable place with mosquitoes the size of a t-rex.)

To sum it up, we are NOT going to go to fuel cells right away. If we are to wean ourselves from mideast oil, first we have to ensure a decent domestic supply. As we become more reliant on our own oil reserves, then we can gradually phase in these new fuel cell technologies.

 

[Makalakumu]

Deadhand

You bring up some great points about fuel cell tech and oil. I look at how oil prices are set and controlled world wide and one thing that pops out at me is that the actions are very deliberate. One thing that it does is keeps cheap oil flowing. Another thing that it does is that it inhibits new technology from developing. In a free market, the consumers demand the cheapest product. Oil is being kept artificially cheap (with out tax money by the way) in order to outcompete alternatives. See what I am saying?

As far as ethanol production goes, the use of fossil fuels would only last as long as a transition took to other types of energy. Like I said before, we have class 6 wind environments on the east coast, the midwest, and the southwest. Germany generates 25% of their power off of wind energy and they only have a class 2. For every rise in class, we can generate 8 times the amount of power. This power could be used to gradually replace more traditional power used in ethanol production.

Also, there are some nucleophilic reactions that can be added to a naturally fermented mixture can make the distillation process happen at much lower temps. This would save energy.

And then there is the fact that I have already seen a fuel cell that is the size of a car engine and has the ability to run a car...

W. has a plan for switching over. The first major thrust of it would take place 20 years from now. In 50, he says our economy will be H based. I don't think that it needs to take that long. Not when so much technology already exists. Nor do I think we need to drill in other natural areas.

Many other countries are already using fuel cells. We are WAY behind Europe in that respect. If we invested in them, we could change a lot of our way of life in much less time then was W has laid out.

upnorthkyosa