exactly!

Best to you.

We may have the “hypothetical” alternative energies to power our empire, but we lack the WILL to change as both a mass of people and as politicians. Plus, as Max would certainly agree, besides the energy needs, are financial needs. Certain people WILL not (in contrast to the general populace) to loose their status/power.

It is like all else in capitalism. Most entrepreneurs (capitalists-in-becoming) try to fulfill a want/(sometimes)need. In this case energy is a “need” (increased by wants). But entrepreneurs are constrained by existing energy capitalists who WILL not loose their share.

change can;t happen fast enough.

As Max said earlier, cataclysmic events must occur. Karma of sorts, or at least balance. Who can deny that the rich man weeps when he’s alone.

A side note on where this conversation has headed is that the world has already ended abruptly for millions of people. When some fret about the coming doom, I have to think that at least some fairness is coming

Don it’s not insoluable. It’s just not ever going to be the same. If you take the difference between the most pessimistic and optimistic outlooks, the human population will need to reduce in numbers to about where it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Fossil has provided that kind of net energy – there is a direct correlation between the human population growth and fossil.

Today, it’s rather humorous when the politicians talk about “shovel ready” physical labor. Who are they talking to? Hardly anyone does physical labor anymore. (Some construction and builders but that’s not the millions of jobs needed.)

But the real irony is that human energy will be needed as there is less and less fossil to engine EVERYTHING. Oil slaves will be replaced by human energy. Our fossil food system will need to be re-invented.

But, Don, it can be done. Will we invest while there is some fossil to pour into renewable? No, not to the levels needed for the industrialized world made possible by fossil. There is no alternative that can readily replace fossil. Industrialization is fossil, a unique and at one time plentiful energy source. Combining all that we know, nuclear, wind, hydrogen, solar, perpetual machines (energy alchemy), etc. etc. cannot support this industrial world we built and all it’s infinite complications.

Human species is a colonizer of energy resources. (In one form or another it is the basis of all our wars…NO EXCEPTIONS, not ideology which is just a phony pretext for the masses.)

Ramesfall, best to you.

you make an outstanding point about McCain, spot on except for one thing; would the dems really have the motivation to be in the street? A straightforward doubt about that on this end. I wonder whether they will once he shows his true colors — not black and white, but blue and white for his Isreaeli owners. Just a thought.

—————————————-

Max,

I have grown accustomed to your clever observations through history, thank-you.

The essence of what this Tuesday’s transition really represents is nothing other than a change in style, a la mode Obama…at least he can speak the language, policy will maintain it’s longstanding course. Won’t be long and his supporters with hopefully take notice of this, but maybe not.

Best to all.

The problem an Obama/Dem presidency presents is that it quiets the level of dissension needed to get beyond the mass media’s strangle hold on what get’s heard.

In the larger scheme, we are in a simple postponement of the inevitable. Once we are collectively faced with this “isn’t Franklin D. Roosevelt”, nor is where we are now the 1930’s version of a Great Depression it will be too late.

If you notice all the attempts to cloak Obama in the past – Lincoln, FDR, JFK, etc. (None of these former presidents used a previous one to create marketed image. And the image is a glamorization of the past…pure fiction.)

The past will not help us. During the 1920s/30s the available cheap energy was at an all time high (cheaper to buy oil than water). Our demand on natural resources has never, ever been as great as it is today. In fact, it’s fair to say today we demand more of the planet than all the time previously in total.

This “cheap” fossil has allowed the human population to explode from1.7 billion to over 6 billion in just over the last century. And the system in place to sustain it is breaking. All provided by cheap fossil.

Politics, when it works at all, will be the greatest detriment to real change because of the pressure to stay on the trajectory set by nearly a century of mindless, endless economic growth. It will take famines, wars, and disease to reduce the population to where the species can survive.

But on the small scale of Obama/Dems it will simply be more of the same Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama.

McCain would have been better for the country because the people worshiping dems would be in the streets for things they’ll not even notice now.

The media is on board with this see no evil hear no evil approach. There is no change of policy with Obama, just a little style change. I remember when Robert McNamara was considered the smartest guy in the room in the Kennedy and later Johnson administrations. He pushed for continued escalation into Iraq – a regular Harvard phi beta capa kinda warmonger. Half million US casualties and 3 million Southeast Asians dead and countless others wounded for life was the sum total of this “smart” joker.

What we have with Obama is the appearance of smart warring and a continuation of the American Empire Enterprise. He’s got the complete staff for it. Not ONE represesents an out of the box thought regarding US imperial power. NOT ONE – including the guy at the head of the table.

We’re going from neocon to con(artist).

It is a bit surprising that anyone still thinks that Hillary is not under the control of the insurance companies.

They always, except Paul, Kucinich and a few others, talk a great talk, but then fail to walk the corresponding walk.

An ounce of faith in this system’s top players is a sign of delusion.

Best to all.

I hope you take criticisms for what they are, justly presented on in your “comments” section.

Now, the thing that kept running through my head while reading each segment is every time you posit with Clinton’s X or Y, the Congress seems to rear it’s ugly head.

This is my 1st read, so that is really just off the cuff.

Now, I did however have to call a time out with this next segment [Terrorism]:

“How about the Patriot Act? This of course, was a bipartisan nightmare based on the assumption that curtailing our civil liberties would make us safe from terror. Given that Clinton had a version of his own following the Oklahoma City bombing called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, there is little reason to believe the Democrats would not have moved forward with a more egregious version following 9-11, with their mass support for John Ashcroft’s version…”

Ok, 1st of all, let’s just leave Oklahoma City out of the equation, but let’s also I have just linked myself to a basic overview [what appears to be...] of this act. I will do my duty in reading and understanding this act. At this time, I am not qualified to parse the argument that there was precedent for the Patriot Act.

However, there is a HUGE logical fallacy in the last statement, or you didn’t really “proof” that last sentence [i.e it could have edited for clarity]:

“there is little reason to believe the Democrats would not have moved forward with a more egregious version following 9-11, with their mass support for John Ashcroft’s version…”

A- [This is a rhetorical attention to "focus" your attention to the obvious fallacy]

Why would John Ashcroft have been Attorney General?

B- [And the last part is a veritable dead point, it is non sensical]

“…with their mass support for John Ashcroft’s version, as our conspicuous souvenir.”

Just kinda doesn’t really make sense and with my 1st point how you appear to be blaming Bill Clinton for a lot of shit that basically can be attributed to the Legislative Branch.

If I care to discuss this anymore, I’d just publish a counter essay [after arduous preparation...] that would be more of a “reverse” analysis of your analysis.

Lastly, you’re fucking clueless.

You have no idea, but I will give you a hint, stop dismissing Alternative Theories.

And lastly, you’re beginning to sound like a windbag on Israel / Gaza.

I am also extrapolating that you are Western, specifically a US Citizen, and if so, A the lack of clarity [and likely accuracy] in this essay you have published, is even more bothersome.

At this point, I can only guess or click your “about”, hmm let me see here on a quick glance at your page…

Ok, indeed you hail from Long Beach.

Well, I’m a little disappointed but brother [that is meant with respect, for I can appreciate a lot of the published works on this site], I do not mean ill will.

Ok?

Can you honestly look at anyone with a straight face and say that The Executive Office of the President underneath George W. Bush has not been the most, horrendous, destructively brutal, quixotic, capricious, jingoistic, venal, deleterious…

I mean fuck dude, is there something in the FISH tacos down there that allows this kinda of torpidity to foster?

See dude, my point is, I actually COULD go on but it’s late…sheesh!

Next time do your homework and consider this, if it’s not a 5000 words [each essay, X [EOoP] vs. Y [EOoP] and thoroughly researched it might as well be “trivia”.

Get out your nails and your hammer!

The Telecommunications Act sailed through Congress in February, 1996. The votes went 91-5 in the Senate and 414-16 in the House. Highlights include:

* Eliminates the FCC rule barring a single company from owning more than 12 television stations.
* Lifts the limit of a broadcaster’s national TV station audience reach from 25 percent to 35 percent.
* Ends the FCC partial ban on broadcast networks owning cable systems.
* Extends TV and radio station license terms to eight years.
* Repeals the law against common ownership of cable system and TV station in a market.
* Eases one-to-a-market rule to allow ownership of TV and radio combos in the same locale, but only in the top 50 markets.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN SIGNING CEREMONY FOR THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT CONFERENCE REPORT – February 8, 1996:

“I thank the Vice President (Al Gore), who fought for this bill for so long on behalf of the American people. And I thank the members of Congress in both parties, starting with the leadership, who believed in the promise and the possibility of telecommunications reform. …

This historic legislation in my way of thinking really embodies what we ought to be about as a country and what we ought to be about in this city. It clearly enables the age of possibility in America to expand to include more Americans. It will create many, many high-wage jobs. It will provide for more information and more entertainment to virtually every American home. It embodies our best values by supporting the kind of market reforms that the Vice President mentioned, as well as the V-chip. And it brings us together, and it was passed by people coming together.

This bill is an indication of what can be done when Republicans and Democrats work together in a spirit of genuine cooperation to advance the public interest and bring us to a brighter future.”