-Moved from the dead blog (on which many of my posts more heavily revealed my liberal leanings) to this more politically relevant (and balanced) one.-
The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, the nation’s largest nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. (They advertisize their organization as non-partisan, but they promote obviously conservative issues that are unconnected with eliminating government waste --- like eliminating inheritence taxes --- on their website.)
Sen. John McCain wrote in the preview to CCAGW's 2005 edition of their "Pork books" series (uncovering government waste), "In 1994 there were 1,318 pork-barrel projects; in fiscal year 2005 there are an estimated 13,000 pork-barrel projects, an increase of 886 percent [over 1994]."
Forbes covered the book in an article on their website. "Pork-barrel spending for fiscal 2005 reached a record $27.3 billion, according to CAGW, a 19% increase over last year.
...
In what areas of the government is pork growing the fastest? CAGW points to homeland security, which saw pork increase 306% this year to $1.7 billion; energy and water, which increased 163% to $1.9 billion; and labor/health and human services, which increased 80% to $1.7 billion."
In a press release by CCAGW on August 5, 2005, the CCAGW Urged the President Bush to veto the latest Republican Pork package, the Highway Bill.
The CCAGW, The Taxpayers for Common Sense Action Group, The National Taxpayers Union, The Club for Growth, The Americans for Prosperity, and FreedomWorks all agreed in their letter to President Bush that the bill should have been vetoed. The groups pointed out that there are nearly 6,500 pork-barrel projects in the bill that total more than $24 billion, or nearly 9 percent of the total spending.
“President Bush had already compromised by raising his spending limit from $256 billion to $284 billion,” CCAGW President Tom Schatz said. “Using budget gimmickry to raise the real cost to $295 billion makes a mockery of the President’s call for fiscal restraint.”
“Unbelievably, President Bush has described this transportation bill as ‘fiscally responsible,’ ” Schatz said. “A bill with such waste and budget gimmickry is not deserving of such a term and should be vetoed.”
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Friday, August 26, 2005
The "Bad Guy" Arguement for toppling Sadaam
-Moved from the dead blog (on which many of my posts more heavily revealed my liberal leanings) to this more politically relevant (and balanced) one.-
I heard something interesting on the way to work today. A caller called into the local public radio station and made an interesting point. We went to Irag to remove a "Bad Guy" (quotes only used because it is an amusingly simple term for big time politics) and liberate the Iraqis. But Saddam Hussein was not the only bad guy out there ---and it could strongly be argued that he was not the worst bad guy out there AND that he was one of the least likely to have the means to strike at the US. A viewpoint that is held by many is that Hussein and Iraq was effectively neutered.
The arguement that the caller put out was that Americans were not given a choice of which bad guy to take out.
This gets into the heart of what was wrong with the decision to invade Iraq, IMO. All points made in this blog are my views --- how I interpret the information I have read about Dubya's wars. Oviously my views are not the equivilant of news stories. I am not employed as a reporter and make no claims as to providing first person sources. I don't work in the white house. I am not employed by a major newspaper or magazine.
Feel free to read my interpretation of what occurred and then do what I did --- do your own research and make your own conclusions.
Americans wanted to kill (and barring that, capture) Osama Bin Ladin when we were in Afganistan. Bush used that anger with individuals in the Middle-eastern Muslim world to drag us into Iraq.
Americans needed closure (Bin Ladin's head). We didn't have it and were willing to continue indefinitely to get it. Bush cooked a reason up to go into Iraq. Potential ties to terrorists. Weapons of mass destruction.
Why Iraq? Why Saddam Hussein?
I have some ideas at this point.
1) The threat to the Bushes. (To me this IS the reason, but feel free to question it, that is just MO.) It was widely reported that Saddam Hussein put a price on Bush Senior's head after the first gulf war. With Hussein in power, the sword of Damacles would always be floating over the head of Bush senior, if not the whole family. The potential of a shooting or a car bomb or some other means of assination killing not only the elder Bush but also Barbara or some other Bush family member would be better than zero.
2) The legacy of Bush Senior. (I think had some limited influence.) The first gulf war was a little like a draw. Let me explain. The military did rout the Iraqi forces, but Bush Senior made the decision not to remove Hussein (for a few wise reasons) preventing what would historically be seen as a complete victory. Bush did not want to finance rebuilding Iraq, which he would have to do it he removed Hussein. He did not want to have spent all of this US money to invade Iraq, remove Hussein, and then have the potential of some other angry middle easterner taking over. By keeping Hussein in power and under the UN's thumb, he could limit Iraq's influence as a disruptive force in the region. The UN was under our thumb, Hussein was under the UN's thumb, and Iraq, it's people (including all the crazy religious zealots), its weapons, and all of it's potential wealth (=oil) was under the defeated Hussein's thumb. That containment policy worked out very well for the world and the region, as Iraq didn't go to war with anyone outside of their borders for over decade. (I do want to note that I don't support this policy as it was hell on the Iraqis.) It did not work out as well for Bush's legacy however, as Hussein was able to do a lot of thumbing his nose at America, which really a conquered nation shouldn't be able to do. Hussein in power created an impression in the US that Bush Senior screwed up by "not finishing the job". Dubya taking out Hussein probably helps that. Hussein had to a large degree crawled out from under the UN's thumb. The member nations had gradually grown disintersted in policing Iraq with the ferver they had in the early 1990's. Hussein had more or less checked himself out of detention. Looking at his historic behavior patterns, Hussein (and his sons?) would probably have resumed more aggressive policies towards their neighbors in this decade. Once that occurred, a fresh round of second guessing of the elder bush would have taken place.
3) Ease of victory and "War Presidents". (I think this was a big factor. Two other potential targets, Saudi Arabia and Iran failed this criteria. In spite of the fact that Saudi Arabia produced MOST of the 9/11 terrorists, The Bush family is tight with the Saudis so they were never on the board. Even if the Bushs did not have personal and finacial connections to Saudi Arabia, the Saudis produce a HUGE portion of the world's oil and are one of the few countries capable of ramping up oil production. If Saudi Arabia was invaded and the country's oil flow was interrupted, it would likely have had a crippling effect on the economies of the industrialized world and obviously from there of all nations. Iran? There has been talk (non-confirmed) that the Iranian government may have played a big role in financing the 9/11 strike. Iran's nuclear development has us worried enough that most Americans would not object to invading them. But how would Americans cope with a possible nuclear strike of our troops? Not well. Iran almost certainly doesn't have nuclear weapons, but the potential that they could acquire even one made them too dangerous to consider.) Bush was a failed president up until 9/11 earned him a free pass. It was a trying time for America, and most Americans felt there were more important things to think about than evaluating the president. The invasion of Afganistan was a very defensible invasion. It was also a very easy American victory (Americans don't have a taste for anything beyond easy victories). The Afgan populace had been largely disarmed by the Taliban. The 10 year Soviet/Afgan War had wiped out a good chunk of their male population. Finally, the Taliban were not popular. Many, if not most Afgans at minimum did not want to fight for the taliban, and in some region there were warlords willing to throw in with the US temporarily to get the Taliban out. The quick Afganistan victory provided Bush with a large approval rating bump. The political capitol earned in this war allowed the Republicans to rubber stamp their agenda at home. As the months dragged on without finding Bin Ladin, Bush was left with a presidential decision. Do the right thing and send the troops into dangerous territory to search for Bin Ladin, where the US would almost certainly incur heavy losses --- hugely unpopular at home --- or do the easy thing, look for an easier target to attack, someone disliked by the American people that would help the administration regain some approval rating. With the sanctions, Iraq's military had very few weapons upgrades since the first gulf war. A huge chuck of the potential current generation of Iraqi soldiers died under UN policies in the 1990's that prevented things like medicine, food, and water from reaching these people as children. A shell of an army with limited supplies and weapons was all that protected Saddam Hussein this time around. Iraq was an easy prey in Dubya's mind. Easy victory. The Iraqi's hate Hussein and would welcome us as liberators. The hugely successful TV event branded "Operation Iraqi Freedom" supplied Bush with another big political bump. Practically, this added political capitol helped the Republicans rubber stamp more of their agenda. Additionally, around this time Bush begain to brand himself a military leader, referring to himself as a "Wartime President". This brilliant advertising helped him in the last election as Americans subscribed to the Republican idea that it was dangerous to change commander-in-cheifs of the military in the middle of a war --- a derivative of an old saying popular in the US, "You don't change horses in midstream".
4) Securing Oil in the age of "Peak Oil"*. (I think this was a big factor in why we went to Iraq, but I do not consider it as much of deciding factor as other critics of Bush do. There are a lot of oil producing countries we could cook up better reasons to invade. Saudi Arabia and Iran were two more reasonable targets in terms of American's thirst for justice and vengance for 9/11, but the previously mentioned "ease of conquest" reasons eliminated them from consideration.) America uses 25% of the oil sold in the world. Our economy is heavily based on oil and petroleum products. (Have you ever thought about how many things you buy that oil was somehow involved in? How many of the things that you buy every week come wrapped in plastic? How many are moved in trucks accross the country?) China and India are becoming industial superpowers. As they develop, their oil needs are increasing dramatically. The day is coming where their oil needs will start to impose upon our oil consumption in the world market. I have no doubt that even a failed oil man like George Bush could see the potential of that day coming. This may be why Bush was not discoraged when Colin Powell advised Bush that if we invaded Iraq, we would be there for a long time (Powell's famous broken pot anology). Having a compliant democratic ally whose oil is pumped and refined by American companies to feed America's economy is a compelling dream, albeit a crazy, inefficient one.
5) The legacy of Dubya. (Not a factor at all in the invasion, IMO. Since then very much a factor in our presence.) I suspect after squeaking into the presidency via the skin of his teeth on the strength of Florida's election fraud and having a miserable first year, Dubya was not thinking he would make it to a second term. I don't think that is being inaccurate. George Bush, The President, found his identity the day he declared himself a "Wartime President". Invading Iraq ideally would secure America's oil interests for the next 30-40 years. He exchanged his legacy as an ineffective politican for the military uniform of a warlord protecting America's long-term interests. Now he holds us in Iraq because Iraq has to embrace democracy and its government has to be strong enough to supress civil war or his legacy (and his father's once more) is lost.
I heard an anti-Bush piece of propaganda on the radio today that if we had spent all of the money we spent on Iraq on US citizens, we could have bought everyone in the US a brand new, 40 MPG Preus. (The point of that statement was that conservation of oil is just as valid if not more valid than securing more oil though military conquest. I get that. But consider for a second how insane that is. That is a 22 thousand dollar car!) Honestly, I HOPE that statement is inaccurate. How many YEARS of taxes has Bush spent on this?
America was the world's economic superpower when Dubya took office. We are now one of many, with a huge debt to overcome and no real keystone industry left to hang our hats on.
America was respected worldwide before Dubya. Before we decided the UN was a waste of time and that their rules didn't apply to us. Before we walked away from the Kyoto treaty. Americans voted to re-elect him, so I'd say we have earned any scorn that he brings our way for the rest of his second term. With luck we won't elect Jeb Bush in 2008, allowing us to once more earn the respect of the world every day by our words and actions.
Leadership is about considering all options, seeking advice, weighing it carefully and striving to make the right choices. Leadership is also about aknowledging when you have made the wrong choice. Members of the british government advised Tony Blair that it was a bad idea to seek regime change in Iraq. The country was too fractured. It would not support any government that arose beyond another Saddam-like ruthless dictator. "Coup will follow coup", they wrote on memoes to Mr. Blair. If both Mr. Blair and President Bush were doing their jobs correctly and considering the advice given to them by their staffs, that information had to be presented to President Bush and considered.
It is clear that if we left Iraq today, the country would disintegrate into civil war. Coup would follow coup as the shiites and Sunnis fought for power. Without the US as protector and mediator, the Kurds would likely sadly reach the conclusion that they would need to sucede to protect their people. That would in turn lead to attacks by the Sunni and Shiites as well as possibly by Turkey and Iran.
If we leave as things are today, a lot of Iraqis will die. If we stay, a lot of Iraqis and Americans will die and we will continue to bankrupt America. If we had not invaded Iraq, most of the Iraqis who have died in the last few years would still be alive, 2000 american soldiers would still be alive, gas would probably be under $2 a gallon, and we would not have this massive and growing war debt to overcome. Legacies are not worth people's lives or even their livelihoods.
I hope this is the last Bush elected to the White House, but somehow I doubt it. I look at Bush Senior using the presidency to bail out his son's bank and Dubya's handling of 9/11 and Iraq and all I can see is a family using the presidency to rip off the American public for the benefit of them and their rich friends.
*If you haven't hear of the term "Peak Oil" yet, you will soon. Peak Oil is a shortened term used by oil industry experts for the point at which we have drilled or consumed most of the oil out there. Oil is a limited resource. Like water in a bottle, at some point you will reach the halfway point in your consumation of all limited resources. That point for the world's oil supply is peak oil. Peak Oil advocates have wrongly predicted the arrival of peak oil in the past, but technological improvents in oil detection and drilling has allowed the harvesting of previously unknown or inaccessible oil feilds --- adding to the total accessible global oil and dropping our historic consumation of oil beneath the halfway point. Some oil professionals and economists debunk peak oil because they feel technological improvements will delay the arrival of an oil or fuel shortage to some point well beyond our lifetimes---if ever. It seems as though more and more economists aknowledge that at minimum, like the Y2K bug, the very concept of Peak Oil could affect the confidence of consumers and purchasers of raw materials which could in turn have huge economic implications for all of the world's markets. If Oil was determined to be in short supply, prices on oil would shoot up. Companies that need oil to make their products would pay whatever price neccessary to get their raw materials. Speculators would buy oil and resell it for a profit. As those prices went up, the prices of all products and services that rely heavily on Oil as a raw material or as a means of transport would also go up. Mail delivery, pizza delivery, plastics, cars --- most products a consumer could buy would be more expensive. The buying power in industrialized nations would fall as oil industry workers and the aristocracy of the middle east profited. Then the drop in buying power in the industrialized world would lead to a global economic slowdown. Beyond that, well...you have to be an economist to really imagine it accurately. Once you get by those first two steps I am out of my depth. :).
I heard something interesting on the way to work today. A caller called into the local public radio station and made an interesting point. We went to Irag to remove a "Bad Guy" (quotes only used because it is an amusingly simple term for big time politics) and liberate the Iraqis. But Saddam Hussein was not the only bad guy out there ---and it could strongly be argued that he was not the worst bad guy out there AND that he was one of the least likely to have the means to strike at the US. A viewpoint that is held by many is that Hussein and Iraq was effectively neutered.
The arguement that the caller put out was that Americans were not given a choice of which bad guy to take out.
This gets into the heart of what was wrong with the decision to invade Iraq, IMO. All points made in this blog are my views --- how I interpret the information I have read about Dubya's wars. Oviously my views are not the equivilant of news stories. I am not employed as a reporter and make no claims as to providing first person sources. I don't work in the white house. I am not employed by a major newspaper or magazine.
Feel free to read my interpretation of what occurred and then do what I did --- do your own research and make your own conclusions.
Americans wanted to kill (and barring that, capture) Osama Bin Ladin when we were in Afganistan. Bush used that anger with individuals in the Middle-eastern Muslim world to drag us into Iraq.
Americans needed closure (Bin Ladin's head). We didn't have it and were willing to continue indefinitely to get it. Bush cooked a reason up to go into Iraq. Potential ties to terrorists. Weapons of mass destruction.
Why Iraq? Why Saddam Hussein?
I have some ideas at this point.
1) The threat to the Bushes. (To me this IS the reason, but feel free to question it, that is just MO.) It was widely reported that Saddam Hussein put a price on Bush Senior's head after the first gulf war. With Hussein in power, the sword of Damacles would always be floating over the head of Bush senior, if not the whole family. The potential of a shooting or a car bomb or some other means of assination killing not only the elder Bush but also Barbara or some other Bush family member would be better than zero.
2) The legacy of Bush Senior. (I think had some limited influence.) The first gulf war was a little like a draw. Let me explain. The military did rout the Iraqi forces, but Bush Senior made the decision not to remove Hussein (for a few wise reasons) preventing what would historically be seen as a complete victory. Bush did not want to finance rebuilding Iraq, which he would have to do it he removed Hussein. He did not want to have spent all of this US money to invade Iraq, remove Hussein, and then have the potential of some other angry middle easterner taking over. By keeping Hussein in power and under the UN's thumb, he could limit Iraq's influence as a disruptive force in the region. The UN was under our thumb, Hussein was under the UN's thumb, and Iraq, it's people (including all the crazy religious zealots), its weapons, and all of it's potential wealth (=oil) was under the defeated Hussein's thumb. That containment policy worked out very well for the world and the region, as Iraq didn't go to war with anyone outside of their borders for over decade. (I do want to note that I don't support this policy as it was hell on the Iraqis.) It did not work out as well for Bush's legacy however, as Hussein was able to do a lot of thumbing his nose at America, which really a conquered nation shouldn't be able to do. Hussein in power created an impression in the US that Bush Senior screwed up by "not finishing the job". Dubya taking out Hussein probably helps that. Hussein had to a large degree crawled out from under the UN's thumb. The member nations had gradually grown disintersted in policing Iraq with the ferver they had in the early 1990's. Hussein had more or less checked himself out of detention. Looking at his historic behavior patterns, Hussein (and his sons?) would probably have resumed more aggressive policies towards their neighbors in this decade. Once that occurred, a fresh round of second guessing of the elder bush would have taken place.
3) Ease of victory and "War Presidents". (I think this was a big factor. Two other potential targets, Saudi Arabia and Iran failed this criteria. In spite of the fact that Saudi Arabia produced MOST of the 9/11 terrorists, The Bush family is tight with the Saudis so they were never on the board. Even if the Bushs did not have personal and finacial connections to Saudi Arabia, the Saudis produce a HUGE portion of the world's oil and are one of the few countries capable of ramping up oil production. If Saudi Arabia was invaded and the country's oil flow was interrupted, it would likely have had a crippling effect on the economies of the industrialized world and obviously from there of all nations. Iran? There has been talk (non-confirmed) that the Iranian government may have played a big role in financing the 9/11 strike. Iran's nuclear development has us worried enough that most Americans would not object to invading them. But how would Americans cope with a possible nuclear strike of our troops? Not well. Iran almost certainly doesn't have nuclear weapons, but the potential that they could acquire even one made them too dangerous to consider.) Bush was a failed president up until 9/11 earned him a free pass. It was a trying time for America, and most Americans felt there were more important things to think about than evaluating the president. The invasion of Afganistan was a very defensible invasion. It was also a very easy American victory (Americans don't have a taste for anything beyond easy victories). The Afgan populace had been largely disarmed by the Taliban. The 10 year Soviet/Afgan War had wiped out a good chunk of their male population. Finally, the Taliban were not popular. Many, if not most Afgans at minimum did not want to fight for the taliban, and in some region there were warlords willing to throw in with the US temporarily to get the Taliban out. The quick Afganistan victory provided Bush with a large approval rating bump. The political capitol earned in this war allowed the Republicans to rubber stamp their agenda at home. As the months dragged on without finding Bin Ladin, Bush was left with a presidential decision. Do the right thing and send the troops into dangerous territory to search for Bin Ladin, where the US would almost certainly incur heavy losses --- hugely unpopular at home --- or do the easy thing, look for an easier target to attack, someone disliked by the American people that would help the administration regain some approval rating. With the sanctions, Iraq's military had very few weapons upgrades since the first gulf war. A huge chuck of the potential current generation of Iraqi soldiers died under UN policies in the 1990's that prevented things like medicine, food, and water from reaching these people as children. A shell of an army with limited supplies and weapons was all that protected Saddam Hussein this time around. Iraq was an easy prey in Dubya's mind. Easy victory. The Iraqi's hate Hussein and would welcome us as liberators. The hugely successful TV event branded "Operation Iraqi Freedom" supplied Bush with another big political bump. Practically, this added political capitol helped the Republicans rubber stamp more of their agenda. Additionally, around this time Bush begain to brand himself a military leader, referring to himself as a "Wartime President". This brilliant advertising helped him in the last election as Americans subscribed to the Republican idea that it was dangerous to change commander-in-cheifs of the military in the middle of a war --- a derivative of an old saying popular in the US, "You don't change horses in midstream".
4) Securing Oil in the age of "Peak Oil"*. (I think this was a big factor in why we went to Iraq, but I do not consider it as much of deciding factor as other critics of Bush do. There are a lot of oil producing countries we could cook up better reasons to invade. Saudi Arabia and Iran were two more reasonable targets in terms of American's thirst for justice and vengance for 9/11, but the previously mentioned "ease of conquest" reasons eliminated them from consideration.) America uses 25% of the oil sold in the world. Our economy is heavily based on oil and petroleum products. (Have you ever thought about how many things you buy that oil was somehow involved in? How many of the things that you buy every week come wrapped in plastic? How many are moved in trucks accross the country?) China and India are becoming industial superpowers. As they develop, their oil needs are increasing dramatically. The day is coming where their oil needs will start to impose upon our oil consumption in the world market. I have no doubt that even a failed oil man like George Bush could see the potential of that day coming. This may be why Bush was not discoraged when Colin Powell advised Bush that if we invaded Iraq, we would be there for a long time (Powell's famous broken pot anology). Having a compliant democratic ally whose oil is pumped and refined by American companies to feed America's economy is a compelling dream, albeit a crazy, inefficient one.
5) The legacy of Dubya. (Not a factor at all in the invasion, IMO. Since then very much a factor in our presence.) I suspect after squeaking into the presidency via the skin of his teeth on the strength of Florida's election fraud and having a miserable first year, Dubya was not thinking he would make it to a second term. I don't think that is being inaccurate. George Bush, The President, found his identity the day he declared himself a "Wartime President". Invading Iraq ideally would secure America's oil interests for the next 30-40 years. He exchanged his legacy as an ineffective politican for the military uniform of a warlord protecting America's long-term interests. Now he holds us in Iraq because Iraq has to embrace democracy and its government has to be strong enough to supress civil war or his legacy (and his father's once more) is lost.
I heard an anti-Bush piece of propaganda on the radio today that if we had spent all of the money we spent on Iraq on US citizens, we could have bought everyone in the US a brand new, 40 MPG Preus. (The point of that statement was that conservation of oil is just as valid if not more valid than securing more oil though military conquest. I get that. But consider for a second how insane that is. That is a 22 thousand dollar car!) Honestly, I HOPE that statement is inaccurate. How many YEARS of taxes has Bush spent on this?
America was the world's economic superpower when Dubya took office. We are now one of many, with a huge debt to overcome and no real keystone industry left to hang our hats on.
America was respected worldwide before Dubya. Before we decided the UN was a waste of time and that their rules didn't apply to us. Before we walked away from the Kyoto treaty. Americans voted to re-elect him, so I'd say we have earned any scorn that he brings our way for the rest of his second term. With luck we won't elect Jeb Bush in 2008, allowing us to once more earn the respect of the world every day by our words and actions.
Leadership is about considering all options, seeking advice, weighing it carefully and striving to make the right choices. Leadership is also about aknowledging when you have made the wrong choice. Members of the british government advised Tony Blair that it was a bad idea to seek regime change in Iraq. The country was too fractured. It would not support any government that arose beyond another Saddam-like ruthless dictator. "Coup will follow coup", they wrote on memoes to Mr. Blair. If both Mr. Blair and President Bush were doing their jobs correctly and considering the advice given to them by their staffs, that information had to be presented to President Bush and considered.
It is clear that if we left Iraq today, the country would disintegrate into civil war. Coup would follow coup as the shiites and Sunnis fought for power. Without the US as protector and mediator, the Kurds would likely sadly reach the conclusion that they would need to sucede to protect their people. That would in turn lead to attacks by the Sunni and Shiites as well as possibly by Turkey and Iran.
If we leave as things are today, a lot of Iraqis will die. If we stay, a lot of Iraqis and Americans will die and we will continue to bankrupt America. If we had not invaded Iraq, most of the Iraqis who have died in the last few years would still be alive, 2000 american soldiers would still be alive, gas would probably be under $2 a gallon, and we would not have this massive and growing war debt to overcome. Legacies are not worth people's lives or even their livelihoods.
I hope this is the last Bush elected to the White House, but somehow I doubt it. I look at Bush Senior using the presidency to bail out his son's bank and Dubya's handling of 9/11 and Iraq and all I can see is a family using the presidency to rip off the American public for the benefit of them and their rich friends.
*If you haven't hear of the term "Peak Oil" yet, you will soon. Peak Oil is a shortened term used by oil industry experts for the point at which we have drilled or consumed most of the oil out there. Oil is a limited resource. Like water in a bottle, at some point you will reach the halfway point in your consumation of all limited resources. That point for the world's oil supply is peak oil. Peak Oil advocates have wrongly predicted the arrival of peak oil in the past, but technological improvents in oil detection and drilling has allowed the harvesting of previously unknown or inaccessible oil feilds --- adding to the total accessible global oil and dropping our historic consumation of oil beneath the halfway point. Some oil professionals and economists debunk peak oil because they feel technological improvements will delay the arrival of an oil or fuel shortage to some point well beyond our lifetimes---if ever. It seems as though more and more economists aknowledge that at minimum, like the Y2K bug, the very concept of Peak Oil could affect the confidence of consumers and purchasers of raw materials which could in turn have huge economic implications for all of the world's markets. If Oil was determined to be in short supply, prices on oil would shoot up. Companies that need oil to make their products would pay whatever price neccessary to get their raw materials. Speculators would buy oil and resell it for a profit. As those prices went up, the prices of all products and services that rely heavily on Oil as a raw material or as a means of transport would also go up. Mail delivery, pizza delivery, plastics, cars --- most products a consumer could buy would be more expensive. The buying power in industrialized nations would fall as oil industry workers and the aristocracy of the middle east profited. Then the drop in buying power in the industrialized world would lead to a global economic slowdown. Beyond that, well...you have to be an economist to really imagine it accurately. Once you get by those first two steps I am out of my depth. :).
Saturday, January 1, 2005
Election result maps by population
-Moved from the dead blog (on which many of my posts more heavily revealed my liberal leanings) to this more politically relevant (and balanced) one.-
This really gives a clearer view of the last election. These maps illustrate the saying, "land doesn't vote, people do."
To me it looks like a blue map being strangled by red strands. Oddly, that is what it feels like as well.
This really gives a clearer view of the last election. These maps illustrate the saying, "land doesn't vote, people do."
To me it looks like a blue map being strangled by red strands. Oddly, that is what it feels like as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)