Oh, nooo!

It looks like the humanitarian “Kintetic Action” in Libya has not solved the problem. Instead of Gaddafi doing the inhumane stuff, the people that replaced him are doing more of the same!

Libya’s regular army and array of militias have been torturing loyalists of slain dictator Moamer Kadhafi, several of whom have been killed in custody, human rights groups charged on Thursday.

Amnesty International said that despite promises, Libya’s new rulers have made “no progress to stop the use of torture”, as Doctors Without Borders suspended its work in the third-largest city Misrata over similar claims.

Their accusations come after a top UN official raised concerns that militias composed of former rebels who helped topple Kadhafi were posing an increasing security risk as they repeatedly clashed with each other.

Shocking! SHOCKING!

Well, no. The lie was that this military campaign we can’t even call a war, because otherwise hypocritical liberals end up with egg on their face, was for humanitarian reasons. The fact is that we finally got us one of those evil “War for oil” wars that the left so claimed to hate and accused the last president of being about. Their accusations where damned lies about that war, BTW. In this case this definitely was a war for oil. Only the oil was for the French, the assholes that through their actions to protect Saddam and their lucrative oil contracts in Iraq, all but guaranteed Saddam would defy the UN and that there would have to be a shoot out.

Now that the guy that promised to end all these wars used our military to kill Gaddafi and made sure he couldn’t sell Libyan oil to China instead, securing the oil for France, there is no more concern for the human equation anymore. But, don’t let the facts get in the way of either the collectivist scumbag narrative or the fact that liberals hate wars and oil only when they don’t control it and get to make money from it.

Comments are closed.

  1. davidst

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  2. Section8

    Also, I’d say everything we do in the middle east is for oil and dollar hegemony (same thing really).

    Perhaps, maybe not. I don’t think every single person out there that thought it was a good thing going in and getting rid of Saddam was putting on such a face to secretly hide their real thoughts, i.e. I can’t wait for gas prices to drop or make a profit from oil EFTs no matter how many die. That’ goes for some in power as well. Regardless that doesn’t mean we should have been there.

    Beyond that I see no issue with Alex pointing out after years of America the Tyrant, and our cowboy-like knee jerk reaction to invade and shootem up for the hell of it, along with years of lecture that the end result of every US action and motivation is tears and terror for profit. After years of hearing the lecture, what’s wrong with pointing out that the exact same actions some people were bitching about are now suddenly oh well or even hunky dory, including overstepping a UN mandate, and strangely enough such actions are appearing to end up with roaming bands of thugs trying to take control, except this time the reaction is crickets from the formerly outspoken.

    Why is that? What did these people of peace actually stand for then since the rules of conduct are now a complete 180.

    Thumb up 2

  3. davidst

    Well, not everyone in government needs to know the real motivations behind every action. And of course there can be multiple motivations (maybe contrary motivations at times). Some government actors may be misled themselves. I ought to learn more about the various conflicts and interfering we’ve done before I make unequivocal statements, but I’m certain that the real picture about oil has been known for a good long while and it’s definitely influenced foreign policy in the middle east for decades.

    The reason liberals don’t say anything about Obama’s double standard is because they buy into the same bullshit that you guys probably do (no offense). They think the Republicans are so bad that even if Obama has seriously not lived up to expectations that they can’t stand the alternative. Of course, they don’t all feel that way, some have seriously abandoned Obama and would vote for Ron Paul in a general election. I wasn’t getting too many pro Obama vibes from OWS.

    As for Alex… yeah I’m being a bit harsh. That said, the way that you present information determines who your readers can share it with. You can share this post with other right-wingers, but I’m going to have to find a more neutral source if I want to share it with independents or worse, any lefties (and boy do I know several hopeless ones).

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT *

    So you’re blaming the French for Bush having to attack Iraq and Obama Libya?

    You either lack reading comprehension or basically are erecting a straw man you can then nock down to pretend the problem was with what I said and not what you prefer people to believe. I pointed out that France was one of Saddam’s major enablers. And you wonder why we think you are a liberal plant when you do things like this? France and Russia, whom had the big deals/contracts with Saddam for Iraqi oil, and where his most active defenders in the UN, were the ones that basically told Saddam there would never be any serious US action because they would just veto it.

    You might either be too young, memory challenged about facts you don’t like, or simply have forgotten, but right before 9-11 both France & Russia where well on their way to having the UN sanctions imposed after the 1991 Iraqi war on Saddam to be done away with. They had the support of everyone in the UN except the US after Bush won. This support for Saddam and his cause happened because the French & Russians were part of a much larger criminal ring of scumbags that used the UN “Oil for food” program, a program that was supposed to allow Saddam to sell just enough oil to get money to feed his people, to make oodles of cash. The UN “humanitarian program” – that’s in quotes to point out sarcasm, because the UN, an embodiment of the left’s beliefs and way of running the world – was a scam that allowed UN officials and many connected people, in more countries than just France & Russia, to get huge kickbacks from illegal sales of additional Iraqi oil, which helped Saddam get enough cash to continue his resistance and avoid compliance with the UN resolutions that were supposed to end all the trouble Iraq was causing.

    If Saddam had not had all this despicable & underhanded support from France or Russia, whom were more interested in Iraqi oil and their profits from it, and actually thought they could use the UN to cock-block the US from making Saddam comply with it’s own rules, and note that this underhanded and despicable behavior was SOP for many of the most vocal nations that opposed the Iraqi war, odds are certain that Saddam would have complied. Instead backed & emboldened by them, he decided to thumb his nose at the rules and pushed so hard that we were forced to conclude he needed to go.

    The fact that the people that accused the US of going into Iraq to steal oil and coined the term “War for oil” where actually the ones motivated by their own stake in this oil is well documented these days. It is why the accusations and haranguing that accused Bush, Cheney, and evil Halliburton all but disappeared. Look it up. Google “Oil for food scam”.

    What motivates the French. Simple greed?

    Was this a rhetorical question?

    Do you see any deeper problems?

    What is this about? I seriously don’t get it. The point of my post was to point out how duplicitous and low the left is. Yes, the same left that quite successfully worked as hard as it could to undermine our fight in Iraq and with their disgusting behavior and support for the enemy cost people their lives. They FALSELY accused us of invading Iraq to steal oil, which never happened. Then, when one of their own is in power, they invade a country under the ludicrous pretext that they are there for humanitarian reasons. Even more disgusting is how they end up calling it a “Kinetic Action” so they can hopefully avoid having to face the accusation of how hypocritical it was of them to decry what they had managed to falsely convince others was similar behavior from Bush. And the real reason they invaded, as we clearly can see now that the same things that caused them to depose Gaddafi for in the first place, are still going on but they no longer care, or the fact that much worse has been happening in Syria – which has no oil – and they have done nothing, proves. Yes, we used our troops in Libya to steal oil for France.

    The deeper problem is how liberals are scumbags that pretend they are saints while the other side can not come up with a fraction of the disgusting behavior the left does.

    Also, I’d say everything we do in the middle east is for oil and dollar hegemony (same thing really).

    Copout, much? The left wants us to believe we are greedy oil stealers and thus wrong when a republican is in charge and they falsely accuse him of that. But it is OK, just what we do in the ME, when democrats really do it. Thanks for making my point for me!

    Thumb up 0

  5. Poosh

    I feel ashamed for supporting this Libya thing now. The evil of Islamic government is rising yet again. And we were warned about it as well.

    We (British) already had good, solid business deals with the Libyans and probably oil contracts, correct me if I’m wrong, my memory is hazy. It made no instrumental sense to get rid of the former government.

    Be wary of attributing villainy or insincere motives to stupidity.

    Thumb up 0

  6. davidst

    I’m 32 and I started paying attention to politics during the run up to the Bush/Gore election, but before that I had read plenty of Limbaugh Letters and heard my dad arguing with my hopelessly liberal Uncle at Thanksgiving. I voted for Bush twice, but become a libertarian during his second term and voted for Obama in retaliation for all the police state shit Bush and Republicans were supporting. That turned out to be a complete waste of time since Obama is just as bad (worse really, but I expect the next president to be worse still; it’s not a left/right problem). Now having paid attention through both Republican and Democrat administrations, I can see that they’re all a bunch of liars and thieves. The only way to discern the true nature of a politician is their voting record and their sponsors. Hence my support for Ron Paul.

    I do recall the oil for food situation now that you explain it in detail, but I remembered very little about it. Everything you’re saying sounds legit, except I question the motivations. I believe the left/right narrative is designed to hide the real motivations of those in power. I’m sure there are a few true believers in politics, but such people are easily manipulated or else marginalized (Ron Paul) by those only interested in selfish personal. When I see machinations involving oil on the national stage, I see competing security interests. I don’t believe we have any real allies in the world, just temporarily aligned interests. So to read that France and Russia were undermining our interest in Iraq doesn’t surprise me at all. For you to consider it traitorous, well it is, but I can hardly see why we should expect loyalty from our “allies”. In the present, I don’t see a liberal alignment (i.e. France is a liberal nation so Obama’s liberal government is helping them out even though they fucked us over with the Oil-for-Food deal). I see Obama addressing a problem of immediate strategic interests. If France encounters an oil shortage right now, it will create ripple effects throughout the European economies that eventually come back to us. I’ve also heard some shit about Gahdaffi thinking about trying to start a gold backed African currency… I don’t know if that’s true or not but we certainly couldn’t allow that.

    The deeper problem is how liberals are scumbags that pretend they are saints while the other side can not come up with a fraction of the disgusting behavior the left does.

    The oligarchy cannot actually do the economic things the left want done while maintaining their own interests. Hence they either don’t do them, go against them or corrupt the process. Or maybe do them a little bit to maintain the illusion. That makes the average lefty look like a hypocrite to those on the right. And they are (the voters; the politicians are mostly just lying). However, the left can accurately see a similar problem in the right. The right doesn’t suffer from as much hypocrisy, but instead have been convinced to support things that do not actually help us (such as tax breaks for the rich that never trickle down to the average joe and only serve to further empower the oligarchy through increased concentration of capital).

    Thumb up 0

  7. hist_ed

    Also, I’d say everything we do in the middle east is for oil and dollar hegemony (same thing really).

    Davidst, if the Iraq invasion were really about oil, we had two better options to get cheap oil:
    A) make a deal with Hussein-fig leaf for oil exports. If we had given him some sort of face saving way to stand up to the Yankee imperialists, he probably would have taken it.
    B) After deposing Hussein, install some Iraqi to run the government. This is a time honored technique of super power diplomacy. Find a vicious Iraqi general, give him money, guns and air support and call it a victory. Oil flows, no insurgency, any terrorist ass wipes become our Iraqi bastard’s problem. It would have been cheaper and easier and we would have wound up with a government more amenable to our diplomatic suggestions than we have now.
    While I think Bush’s policy was naive, I also think he really was being idealistic in thinking he could transplant democracy. It was a long shot-who knows how it will end, but to get the oil option A or B would have been cheaper. They also would have allowed the US to steer the lucrative oil contracts to eeevvviiilll American oil companies so that the Cowboy;s oil baron friends would have gotten rich.

    Thumb up 0

  8. davidst

    The statement I made was really too sweeping and simplifying. It’s hard to separate national security from corporate interests at this point because corporations that influence the U.S. government have become so globalized. Also the corporate interests are in competition to some degree.

    Who benefits from dollar hegemony? U.S. banks and financial interests and countries that export to us. Who doesn’t benefit? Oil producing states that would rather have payment in a currency less print to inflation. Who benefits from cheap oil? Everyone except oil producing countries (of course, their governments may be acting for personal benefit not benefit of their people). Who benefits from fighting a war for 10 years? The military industrial complex. As usual, it’s tempting to simplify but in reality it’s very complicated. The pressure from the MIC to fight open ended war may be responsible for us not taking the easy way out of Iraq. It’s hard to believe it was all maintained due to a naive attempt at nation building. Especially since I don’t think anyone with such idealistic notions had any real power.

    Thumb up 0

  9. AlexInCT *

    I’m 32 and I started paying attention to politics during the run up to the Bush/Gore election, but before that I had read plenty of Limbaugh Letters and heard my dad arguing with my hopelessly liberal Uncle at Thanksgiving. I voted for Bush twice, but become a libertarian during his second term and voted for Obama in retaliation for all the police state shit Bush and Republicans were supporting.

    You sound like a lot of the idiots I know that thought the problem was Bush and not the political class trying to cover their own asses for not taking the people in the ME that had been telling us for 2 decades now they where at war with us, seriously. History would have shown you that leftists, and especially leftist that come from grieve mongering circles like Obama sure did, would do far worse. If they had not just bought that “Hope & Change” nonsense hook, line, and sinker, they did it out of spite. As if the left would do better at anything but screwing us harder.

    That turned out to be a complete waste of time since Obama is just as bad (worse really, but I expect the next president to be worse still; it’s not a left/right problem). Now having paid attention through both Republican and Democrat administrations, I can see that they’re all a bunch of liars and thieves. The only way to discern the true nature of a politician is their voting record and their sponsors. Hence my support for Ron Paul.

    Sorry dude but if this is your conclusion, then you missed out on the whole issue again. Ron Paul’s belief that retreating into isolationism can work, will make things far worse than even the idiotic actions of Obama have. Unless he plans to simply nuke anyone that takes that sort of move as a sign of absolute weakness, something Paul has not said he would do – and I am slowly coming to hold the scary belief that this struggle has no possible end other than they nukes or we do it first, because these people at war with us simply are not willing to join modernity on any terms, so maybe that should be our policy, who knows – that plan will just kill more people before we have to go back to clean out that cesspool.

    BTW, nobody can be worse than Obama, unless we are talking about a Hitler, Mao, or Stalin. And I am certain Obama pines to be one of those with that ego of his. Every time I hear him talk about how he wants to “change” America, I cringe and pray to the univerese he never gets to do anything of the sort.

    Davidst, if the Iraq invasion were really about oil, we had two better options to get cheap oil:

    You ain’t kidding here hist_ed. Saddam, on numerous occasions, offered the US all his oil – meaning he would break the contracts he had with the French & Russians – if they but pulled the sanctions and let him go back to enjoying the tyrannical benefits of terrorizing your people. We would not have needed a costly war to get oil. And if we wanted to start a war for oil, we should have invaded Canada, Mexico, or even Venezuela. Those are the countries we get practically all our oil from, and nobody else would give a rats ass about it then. Certainly neither the fucking greedy French or the backstabbing Russians.

    Thumb up 2

  10. AlexInCT *

    The statement I made was really too sweeping and simplifying. It’s hard to separate national security from corporate interests at this point because corporations that influence the U.S. government have become so globalized. Also the corporate interests are in competition to some degree.

    I see your problem. You seem to still believe government is being forced to do stupid things by corporations instead of the other way around. The only power corporate interests have these days is the ability to BUY favors from government. And they are not the ones that created that system. The problem we now have to content with has not been the power of corporations, but that of government, when government, in their pursuit of a solution to prevent corporations from having exactly the power you claim they do, set up a system that allowed them to dictate idiotic things to these corporations. Our governments have become simply too powerful, and the only way to roll that back is to roll government and the power of government back. As long as the welfare state exists, big government will have excuses to meddle in everything and everywhere.

    Thumb up 0

  11. AlexInCT *

    A little statistical evidence that bankers “own” politicians. Ask yourself, would they spend the money if they weren’t getting a return on their investment?

    Wait a minute.. is this another manwhore incarnation?

    Thumb up 1

  12. Section8

    “Ron Paul’s belief that retreating into isolationism can work, will make things far worse than even the idiotic actions of Obama have.”

    Huh? No it won’t. Do you know what it will do? The European countries will start spending more on their own defense if they feel its needed. Same with Asia too. The EU is almost on par with us regarding GDP I think higher now actually, yet we foot over 45% of all defense spending for the entire world. Why?

    The founding fathers certainly weren’t for having long term alliances and bases all over the world. I guess they were idiotic too.

    I really don’t understand this. Yes, Hitler came to power. We don’t want that to happen again, and that’s great, but I doubt Europe wants it again either. I would imagine they have learned their lesson.Although it did cost us a lot of lives, it cost them far more.

    If lessons aren’t learned, that should not be our job to worry about. Provide for the common defense and not the defense of the whole damn planet.

    Thumb up 1

  13. richtaylor365

    we should have invaded Canada

    I’ve been saying that for years. Not only would it solve our oil problem, we could make fortune clear cutting the shit out of their timber industry and sell it to the Chinese. Then, the best hockey players in the world would be American and we could get Hoho’s old job back at Nortel, shutting him up from his incessant whining. All the maple syrup you want, not to mention the gold and silver just laying around.

    Trey and Matt have already showed us that they would not put up much of a fight.

    Thumb up 1

  14. richtaylor365

    Section8, one fallout of a Paul presidency, you might not see it as a negative, is that all those countries under our nuclear umbrella would figure out real fast that they are on their own, which means that in 5 years time instead of 9 nuclear powers, there would be 25.

    I realize that this is all bloviating anyway, the chances of a Paul presidency are lower then you getting mauled by a polar bear, then a grizzly bear an hour later, then suffer a shark attack…….on land.

    Thumb up 2

  15. davidst

    You worry about government interference with business (at the request of corporations who benefit from stifled competition) and foreign terrorism more than you worry about the governments accumulation of police state powers and subservience to corporate lobbying and you think I’m the crazy one? You think welfare is a cause and not an effect? You think we have all the oil in the world right here at home. I try to express a reasonable uncertainty about the enormously complex geopolitical relations in the world, and you jump on that as a sign of weakness because you think you’ve got it all figured out. Is there anything you’re not sure about?

    Thumb up 0

  16. hist_ed

    we could get Hoho’s old job back at Nortel, shutting him up from his incessant whining

    That alone might make he invasion worth it.

    Thumb up 0

  17. Section8

    Section8, one fallout of a Paul presidency, you might not see it as a negative, is that all those countries under our nuclear umbrella would figure out real fast that they are on their own, which means that in 5 years time instead of 9 nuclear powers, there would be 25.

    That’s possible. Under our nuclear umbrella we’re see NK and Iran getting weapons, so how’s that working out? I guess it makes more sense though to have only the enemies obtain more weapons. Fact is, if those other countries wanted them or what them, they’ll get them. The cat is out of the bag.

    Please make note of this though, because it’s brought up many times here from the authors of this site, all the way to the every day occasional poster, except when it comes to world cop spending. WERE ARE GOING BROKE. We are going broke period, and we are going broke because we’re spending too damn much money. The creditor doesn’t give a shit what it’s spend on. We are borrowing from the very country that’s supposed to be the future threat. We are becoming more dependent on them, and they may very well tip us into irrelevance without firing a shot. Now you tell me, how does that make you feel safer?

    Thumb up 0

  18. hist_ed

    The statement I made was really too sweeping and simplifying.

    Hold on, wait a minute, did poster to RTFTLC just admit to going a little too far in a post? Where’s Jimk? Mark this day down. Or wait, do we ban the guy? He might just pollute us with his modesty. The whole site will crash if we allow much more of this.

    Look, David, while we appreciate the effort, here at RTFTLC we do things a little differently. You first error was the sentence I quoted. In response you should have taken one of the following options (as listed on pages 27-34 on the RTFTLC style manual, also reference in appendixes C and F):

    A) Completely ignore the post from now on and not respond to anything on this thread (but flame like crazy on another thread to draw attention away).

    B) Attack the other poster (me, in this case) by calling them a communist wacko/Bush bootlicker (add in gratuitous personal insults as well regarding penis size, homosexual tendencies, coprophilia, or lack of education

    C) Bury it in a multi-page post replete with links to a dozen of so web sites only tangentially related to the topic but designed to inflame others (Ann Coulter, Andrew Sullivan, Paul Krugman, etc.).

    D) Pick out one or two typos and criticize them without responding to the substance of the post.

    E) Insist that you really didn’t mean what the clear language of your post means and that anyone who reads it that way is obviously an idiot and/or blinded by ideology or personal animus.

    Note that combining two or more of the above can be extra effective.

    I hope that this little missive helps get you into the swing of things around these parts. Remember, the style manual points out on page 163 that the correct ratio is 7 parts invective to each part reasoned discourse you little shit eating, goat fucking, communist, santorum licking, freedom hating illiterate pervert. Andrew Sullivan says so here: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/

    Thumb up 3

  19. richtaylor365

    so how’s that working out?

    How it’s working out is that there are many countries (including some very unstable ME regimes) that are currently not pursuing nuclear capabilities, that is a good thing.

    WERE ARE GOING BROKE.

    We are broke, but I would posit that a curtailment/realigning/prioritizing of our foreign commitments could be done with marginal impact on our finances. Borrowed dollars spent right here in America is what is driving up the deficit.

    It is a convenient scapegoat to blame foreign aid and dollars spent elsewhere other then here for our fiscal predicament, but it is not reality, penny wise/dollar foolish.

    Thumb up 1

  20. Section8

    It is a convenient scapegoat to blame foreign aid and dollars spent elsewhere other then here for our fiscal predicament, but it is not reality, penny wise/dollar foolish.

    So you don’t think we could cut our defense spending to help with the debt situation and use the rest to invest in items like missile defense, and other defensive weapons and strategies rather than having bases everywhere just waiting for a reason to go on the attack? It’s not foreign aid I’m referring to, it’s our huge defense budget that is not only part of what is bleeding us to death, but others get to piggy back off of (many of whom at the end of the day will say good riddance once we bleed to death). It’s just one item of many government “obligations” that has grown beyond reason.

    I’ve stated it here before. I am not opposed to going in and beating the crap out of the enemy if we are attacked (and Britain since they’ve been with us through thick and thin) or it’s clear that we will be attacked, What I am against is all this preventative maintenance that does not win over even our allies, and at the end of the day just doesn’t work. Yes partly because of the left and their propaganda machines, partly because we can’t get rid of every despot out there, Either way, we don’t have the money to convince all the world what we are doing is for the greater good, nor should that be our job. The war on despots is as fruitless as the war on drugs, war on poverty, and every other war on…

    Again, the obligation of our government was and still is to provide for the common defense, and your broad interpretation is no better than those who broadly interpret the Commerce Clause to justify whatever.

    Thumb up 0

  21. davidst

    hist_ed: thanks for noticing :-) Seriously, there is nothing I value higher than honest discourse and I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong or went to far with an idea. My head is full of crazy competing and conflicting ideas in the last 6 months as I’ve become aware of many things I wasn’t aware of. I’m still trying to sort it all out.

    Thumb up 2

  22. richtaylor365

    I find myself in un chartered waters considering that I normally argue your side, the side being that we can not remain the world’s policeman, right every wrong, and inject our will into every foreign entanglement. But your solution, as I interpret it, is worse then our present course. Closing all our foreign bases, withdrawing from all military agreements, getting out of the UN, NATO, essentially abandoning all world commitments and promises and let the rest of the world fend for themselves is not the way to go, there is a happy medium.

    So you don’t think we could cut our defense spending to help with the debt situation

    In previous posts on the subject I have stated that ALL government agencies must get a haircut, including the military. They can get leaner/meaner and still be effective.

    rather than having bases everywhere just waiting for a reason to go on the attack?

    You think that is why we have foreign bases, for a reason to go on the attack? Gee, how many decades have we had troops both in S. Korea and Japan, all those years and no attacks, what a waste.

    S. Korea and Japan offer us some good examples of why we need foreign bases. But on the flip side, it reminds us that times change and nobody needs their hand held forever. Aside from some patriot missile batteries and some advanced radar stations, no US military is needed in S. Korea. They have 5 times the military might of the northern brethren and could handle any engagement no matter how big. Ditto with Japan. Since the end of the cold war we have not closed any airbases there (still have 6, fully staffed and operational), the Japanese military is modern and first rate, a major draw down (not total elimination since the China still has designs on Taiwan) is warranted.

    It’s just one item of many government “obligations” that has grown beyond reason.

    In it’s current state and how it’s funded, I agree. But there are more then two choices here (leave well enough alone or eliminate it entirely), that is what I mentioned in the earlier comment:

    but I would posit that a curtailment/realigning/prioritizing of our foreign commitments could be done with marginal impact on our finances

    As useless as the UN is, I would not advocate removing ourselves from it, and given that austerity is necessary for everyone, a reshuffling of financial commitments is warranted. Having it on our soil means dick, we will contribute what everyone else contributes, fair is fair.

    and Britain since they’ve been with us through thick and thin

    Don’t forget Israel. Contrary what davidst was peddling earlier, our presence in the ME is as much to keep the Arabs in line/ to remind them that Israel is not going away as anything else. Would you be in favor of extricating ourselves out of all ME bases as well?

    Again, the obligation of our government was and still is to provide for the common defense, and your broad interpretation is no better than those who broadly interpret the Commerce Clause to justify whatever.

    This is probably worthy of a separate post, “How global minded would our founders be and would they think our military reach over reaches constitutional constraints? What a good question. Given that we had foreign diplomats hob nobbing with the Euros since day one, was always looking for foreign markets for trading partners (was willing to send our military might to lands half way around the world when those trade agreements were challenged) and had zero qualms about parading our navy (once it did become a world power) around the world flexing it’s muscles, I would think that those men were if nothing else pragmatic, aware of the shifting parameters of “national interests” and willing changing times as maybe a changing of attitudes.

    Thumb up 2

  23. Section8

    “How global minded would our founders be and would they think our military reach over reaches constitutional constraints? What a good question.

    Well Washington was opposed to foreign intervention, Jefferson too to some extent, but he did want to get us involved more in the French Revolution, but all and all the beginning years of this country was to stay out of entanglements, for the most part, and certainly nothing of the sort about long term alliances, obligations, and massive military presence around the world. They all were aware of global trade and commerce and addressed that as well.

    Link

    As far as changing times, that argument can and has been used to attempt (and succeed at times) in restricting free speech, expanding gun control, and threatening a host of other freedoms. I’m not a big fan of the changing times argument. Everyone and his brother uses it to take a bite out of the document government is supposed to live by. The Constitution was written for a reason. It was written based on lessons learned from human behavior, and bad decisions that have brought down countries. One of those bad decisions in history is vast over extension of armies regardless of intent.

    Thumb up 0

  24. richtaylor365

    As far as changing times, that argument can and has been used to attempt (and succeed at times) in restricting free speech, expanding gun control, and threatening a host of other freedoms.

    But no one here is making that argument, are they? And considering that this is a right thinking blog where everyone here respects and defends the Constitution, I don’t know why you even went there.

    I’m not a big fan of the changing times argument.

    Too bad since I don’t know how you can possibly reconcile the founder’s attitudes on race and how we now consider normal interaction between the races. How do you think the founders would feel about the 14th Amendment, Brown v. Board of Education , or Loving v. Virginia?

    How do you think they would feel about the 16th Amendment, and income taxes in general? or Voting? You think they would continence women voting, or non land owners voting? You think they spent much time worrying about our unsecured borders and our immigration problem? How about welfare, do you think they envisioned a nation that would have to spent vast amounts of tax dollars on social security, medicare, or unemployment benefits? Abortion, gay rights, do you really think all governmental decisions should be sifted through the filter of what would our for fathers think?

    Re: our initial non interventionists polices, you think that might have been because we were a brand new (small/weak) nation, who’s method of freedom and independence was never been done before in history and at that time we were the only democracy going? Hard to make friends and gain alliances when everyone out there is not too thrilled about what you just did to a fellow monarch.

    And considering the prevailing attitude of the founders wrt the native Americans and acquiring land, they all believed in Manifest Destiny, that it was God’s will that America spread and grow, and how that was to be achieved was by killing the Indians and taking their land from them, a more imperialistic attitude could not possibly be conceived.

    Thumb up 0

  25. Section8

    But no one here is making that argument, are they? And considering that this is a right thinking blog where everyone here respects and defends the Constitution, I don’t know why you even went there.

    Umm, because you basically implied we’re in different times.

    I would think that those men were if nothing else pragmatic, aware of the shifting parameters of “national interests” and willing changing times as maybe a changing of attitudes.

    Perhaps I just read it wrong.

    Too bad since I don’t know how you can possibly reconcile the founder’s attitudes on race and how we now consider normal interaction between the races. How do you think the founders would feel about the 14th Amendment, Brown v. Board of Education , or Loving v. Virginia?

    Don’t know, I don’t think all of them were slave owners or racists, but the race argument is yet another leftist tactic when promoting whatever agenda they have at the expense of the government limits set forth by the Constitution. You may not like the left, but your tactics of how we need to alter what we were founded on are pretty much identical. Which is sad since it weakens my ability to tell them they are full of shit when the occasional radical comes by and uses the exact same method to promote whatever agenda they have.

    Abortion, gay rights, do you really think all governmental decisions should be sifted through the filter of what would our for fathers think?

    Let me say this with no uncertain terms. ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY 100% correct. I think the Constitution should be interpreted based on what we know about their thoughts when they created it, and not anyone elses. Now, if you have a problem with the way the document is constructed based on the document they created with how they thought, then there is a method to change it called the amendment processes. Which we used some time ago to extend the basic freedoms to everyone. Sometimes it is needed, but it is a deliberate and tough process where the issue at hand is either so grievous or awesome that it requires a change to the rules of the government.

    I do appreciate your tear into the people who created this country. I honestly would have expected the moniker of Murgieo or Hohokiss to appear next to that informative response. This is a right thinking blog, so why the far leftist excuses for our government exceeding its limits when it suits your desires? It’s rather alarming really.

    Thumb up 0

  26. richtaylor365

    Don’t know, I don’t think all of them were slave owners or racists

    Yes, they were. The only non slave holding founding father was John Adams, and even he interchanged “negro” with “and other American property” in several treaties that he signed with GB. Understand that what constituted “racists” was different then. Even the freer of the slaves A. Lincoln, an ardent abolitionist said this:

    “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

    but the race argument is yet another leftist tactic when promoting whatever agenda they have at the expense of the government limits set forth by the Constitution.

    Ah, I see, so I ask you a question , you answer ,”I don’t know”, then qualify/denigrate the question by saying it is a tactic of the left. Don’t just fluff it off, think about it for a moment. Given the attitudes of the founding fathers wrt race, race relations, and equality within the races, you are willing to stick with the notion that attitudes/thinking must not evolve but stay couched in the 18th century thinking?

    You may not like the left, but your tactics of how we need to alter what we were founded on are pretty much identical.

    You don’t think the Constitution gets “altered” from time to time? You yourself brought up the amendment process, if the Constitution was to stand forever on its own, unaltered, why did the founding fathers write into the Constitution a process for amendment to the Constitution?

    Sometimes it is needed,

    Yes, it is, which would be counter to your claim that the document is immutable and should stand on it’s own forever.

    I do appreciate your tear into the people who created this country.

    Here’s a news flash for you, they were not saints. Look, I take people warts and all. I have the ability to admire both the achievements of our founding fathers and the incredible job they did in creating a new nation and the documents that govern this nation, but I also understand the fallibility of man. The last perfect person walked the earth 2000 years ago, so whatever great things the FF did (and they were great) I also get that they were only men, flaws and all.

    , so why the far leftist excuses for our government exceeding its limits when it suits your desires?

    I am anxious to see your example of where I was excusing government for exceeding it’s limits, I am for just the opposite.

    I think it provides an interesting discussion on how the FF would view are current issues. You are only assuming that they would be against military expansion and intervention through out the world. Since they are not around for us to ask them, you may be right, but given how they felt about Manifest Destiny, who knows? It’s possible that their feeling on this subject might have evolved (I know how you like that word) into something more practical, and they might have limited their reach to our particular continent, but it’s all speculation, that is what makes it fun.

    Thumb up 0

  27. Section8

    Yes, they were. The only non slave holding founding father was John Adams, and even he interchanged “negro” with “and other American property”

    According to this site it was about 50% which is still ridiculously high. Apparently you “don’t know” any more than I do.

    http://www.quora.com/How-many-of-Americas-founding-fathers-were-slave-owners

    You don’t think the Constitution gets “altered” from time to time? You yourself brought up the amendment process, if the Constitution was to stand forever on its own, unaltered, why did the founding fathers write into the Constitution a process for amendment to the Constitution?

    Yes, the amendment process. If you want to alter Article 1 Section 8 to now read that we should have permanent bases all over creation, other countries are too weak or too stupid to defend themselves, therefore we should be world’s protector and engage in as many obligations that are necessary to accomplish this, then ask your congressman to promote such an amendment. Since it’s my tax dollars and blood that will come of this, plus any reward, I should get to decide on this as well as any other American since it has now become permanent policy, otherwise the current structure should be interpreted through those who wrote it, along with the bill of rights or any other part. If amended then it should be interpreted through those who wrote the amendment. We need some standard as how to interpret it, otherwise it becomes the Bible, and you can come up with God meant this or that to excuse or rationalize whatever fits you for the moment.

    What scares me is that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of assholes bullshit is that it leaves EVERYTHING open to whatever interpretation is cool at the moment. That is exactly what the left do. What better way to avert the limits of government than to trash the very core that limits it.

    You are exactly like the left who do their best to diminish the foundation of which we stand on, and go through whatever means necessary to paint the framers in the worst light possible in order to create new rules for your own image. Can you not at all see what is disturbing about that?

    Thumb up 0

  28. richtaylor365

    Ben Franklin owned slaves but then his thinking “evolved” and he became a staunch abolitionist. We have an example of a FF, one of the best and brightest, who used his intellect to grow and change his views in this area. You want us to interpret the Constitution” only through the eyes of those that wrote it, which Ben Franklin eyes should we use, the slave holder or the abolitionist?

    J. Adams and T. Jefferson, two of the biggest movers towards independence and probably two of the greatest minds this nation has created, would you not agree? Yet, they both had widely divergent views on government. both were FF, which one was right? Even Madison (the father of the Constitution) differed with Jefferson is some areas, do we use only Madison eyes and discount those of Jefferson?

    Thumb up 0

  29. Section8

    Rich, we have documents such as the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, and other historical documents we can use as supplements to help interpret, as well as various quotes. I already presented some quotes, and your response is they were a bunch of slave owning, murderous, imperialistic assholes anyhow, so why bother? Now, you’ve been blogging for a while. Did you ever get pissed off when some left wing hack came along and wrote those exact same things?

    As far as Manifest Destiny, that didn’t even begin in earnest until 40 or so years after the Constitution was created, and most of the Founding Fathers were dead. So no, I don’t think they had much say in it.

    Thumb up 1

  30. richtaylor365

    According to this site it was about 50% which is still ridiculously high. Apparently you “don’t know” any more than I do.

    I was referring to the Heavy hitters”, I doubt anyone would know who William Few or Daniel Carroll were. Interestingly I did not see Ben Franklin on that list, so what constitutes as “slave owner: was someone owning slaves the day they signed the Constitution? Many of those on that list were Southerners, what do you think their attitudes/beliefs would be wrt Negroes?

    . If you want to alter Article 1 Section 8 to now read that we should have permanent bases all over creation, other countries are too weak or too stupid to defend themselves, therefore we should be world’s protector and engage in as many obligations that are necessary to accomplish this, then ask your congressman to promote such an amendment

    Again, you are going off the deep end, where have I said:
    1) I want to alter Article I Section 8
    2) have permanent bases all over creation
    3) or be the world’s protector.

    What you are doing is classic Reductio Ad Absurdum, stick with what I actually said, it’s easier and cleaner that way.

    In no way have I advocated any of those things, in fact I did state above that I argue you side wrt being the world’s policeman and stretching ourselves too thin, remember? Did you read anything I wrote above about S. Korea and Japan?

    But because I admit that I don’t know how the FF (which FF) felt about military expansionism (and neither do you) you go off and assume that I am FOR military expansionism, how absurd.

    What scares me is that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of assholes bullshit

    Who said they were all assholes? I know you can read and understand the written word, you somehow equate “not perfect” with “asshole”, that is quite a leap, wouldn’t you say?

    You are exactly like the left who do their best to diminish the foundation of which we stand on, and go through whatever means necessary to paint the framers in the worst light possible in order to create new rules for your own image.

    Now you are just being silly.

    Thumb up 0

  31. Section8

    Many of those on that list were Southerners, what do you think their attitudes/beliefs would be wrt Negroes?

    I’ve had about enough and am going to bed. This is just plain stupid. I’m talking about getting out of the world cop business, and the original policy of this nation, and you are doing everything you can to make it a race argument to thereby diminish all policy that surrounded original standards of this nation. You are EXACTLY like every left wing loon out there who goes down this path everytime they know they don’t have an argument.

    Thumb up 1

  32. richtaylor365

    and your response is they were a bunch of slave owning, murderous, imperialistic assholes anyhow, so why bother?

    That is not what I said.

    As far as Manifest Destiny, that didn’t even begin in earnest until 40 or so years after the Constitution was created, and most of the Founding Fathers were dead. So no, I don’t think they had much say in it.

    You should learn more about Manifest Destiny, its religious roots:

    It also was firmly anchored in a long standing and deep sense of a special and unique American Destiny, the belief that in the words of historian Conrad Cherry, “America is a nation called to a special destiny by God.” The notion that there was some providential purpose to the European discovery and eventual conquest of the land masses “discovered” by Christopher Columbus was present from the beginning.
    —-
    John Winthrop, Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, gave the clearest and most far-reaching statement of the idea that God had charged the English settlers in New England with a special and unique Providential mission.
    —-
    By 1789, with the adoption of the Constitution and the inauguration of George Washington as president, the new nation itself was invested with a special meaning and mission. Americans did not consider their new nation to be simply another nation among nations, but a providentially blessed entity charged to develop and maintain itself as the beacon of liberty and democracy to the world.

    Also:

    Benjamin Franklin described the independent colony on the East Coast as “God’s new Israel”.
    —-
    George Washington once remarked that the thirteen states had “laid the foundation of a great empire.”

    If you read histories of Washington, Franklin,and Jefferson, you come to find out how important the acquirement of ever increasing land (mostly taken from Indians) parcels and acreage was to these founding fathers.

    The term was not coined officially until later but the notion that God had ordained this continent to them was paramount since Pymouth Rock.

    Thumb up 0

  33. davidst

    Isolationism is great advice in a time when your enemies have to sail wooden sailing ships across a vast ocean to attack you, and you have most of the natural resources you need on your own continent. However, in our present circumstances, we need to think about it a little more carefully. We rely on the world for part of our oil supply, but we have little to offer in return except the “protection” of our military and the quality of our dollar as the world’s banking reserve (a situation that I suspect we were able to arrange based on our military might). Those things are what allow us to run a huge trade deficit.

    To go back to isolationism means to let the dollar fall further (perhaps much further) and consequently submit to much higher foreign import prices (oil and otherwise) and eliminate our trade deficit by manufacturing our own things again. We would become a much different country than we are now. It would take some time. It may still be worth doing intentionally because if we try to maintain it and fail, we will be even worse off than if we give it up peacefully.

    Thumb up 0

  34. Seattle Outcast

    And the other shoe drops.

    Only hardcore liberals believe that libertarians, conservatives, etc, are “isolationists”, and here you are feeling the need to lecture us about the evils of it.

    So, which Soros-backed, “grass roots” pro-Obama group do you work for?

    Thumb up 1

  35. salinger

    So, which Soros-backed, “grass roots” pro-Obama group do you work for?

    This is where the comedy of RTFLC kicks in.

    SO – you do realize that this new kid is merely agreeing with a comment made by Alex earlier in the thread in response to this new guys claim to support Ron Paul – I mean it would be almost like posters here don’t bother with context. It would be as if some contributors merely sit and wait for certain catch phrases that allow them to lower their Godwinian booms.

    What could happen next? Maybe it would turn into a battle of personalities and issues would fade into the background as personal attacks take precedence over any content. Insults and ad hominem volleys would supersede substance.

    Glad I clicked through today – I could use a laugh.

    Thumb up 0

  36. davidst

    SO: Who are you talking to? Alex, Section8 and I have all used that word in this thread so far and Alex started it. He used it specifically to refer to Ron Paul’s foreign policy and that’s roughly how I’m using it. It’s a convenient term. What do you want us to say instead?

    And once again, I’M NOT NEW AND NOT LIBERAL. Try a Google Search. I’ve been visiting Right Thinking since at least 2005 and I’ve got 700+ worthless comments to prove it:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=site:right-thinking.com+davidst&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvns&filter=0&biw=1451&bih=902

    Thumb up 1

  37. Seattle Outcast

    My mistake – I saw a lecture on the evils of isolationism that apparently sprung from nowhere and I’ve seen that MO too many freaking times.

    Thumb up 0

  38. JimK

    Know how you can spot a Paulite?

    They overreact to any possible use of the word “isolationism.”

    I KID, SO. But also, I serious. BUT I ALSO KID! (a little seriousing included though). BUT I MOSTLY KID!

    Thumb up 1

  39. Seattle Outcast

    I like Ron Paul, but I consider him to be unelectable in the general election. Also, there are times that I have to wonder if he isn’t a complete crackpot.

    What got me started on this was some time back I started noticing that liberals had started steering the conversation toward the assumption that non-liberals were a bunch of isolationists (among accusations of incest, bestiality, and room-temperature IQs), and then would proceed to lecture on just how uneducated that position was.

    Of course, perhaps the worse liberal trait any more is the tendency to lecture down. Obama is perhaps the worst one of the bunch for this; if you disagree with him the only answer is because you’re just too ignorant and uneducated to understand the nuances and truth of the situation. After he schools you in the topic, you’ll understand how you were wrong. If not, then you’re an idiot or evil. Maybe both.

    Thumb up 0

  40. JimK

    Of course, perhaps the worse liberal trait any more is the tendency to lecture down.

    Oh God yes. And as soon as I hear it, I almost involuntarily tune right the fuck out. It makes me stabby when Obama lectures us about how we just don’t “get it.”

    Aside: Obviously Big O has got to go. I CANNOT BELIEVE MY CHOICE IS GINGRICH OR ROMNEY OR MAYBE IF A STAR EXPLODES PAUL. Is there no one in national politics that doesn’t make me want to wall them up in an abandoned missile silo?

    Thumb up 1

  41. AlexInCT *

    You worry about government interference with business (at the request of corporations who benefit from stifled competition) and foreign terrorism more than you worry about the governments accumulation of police state powers and subservience to corporate lobbying and you think I’m the crazy one? You think welfare is a cause and not an effect?

    Who is this “You” whom you speak off, Kimosabe? Cause if it is me all I have to do is point out how cool that strawman you just erected is. I have forever advocated that we need to shrink government to kill its power everywhere and in every aspect. But you can pretend otherwise.

    And I ask again: are you manwhore?

    You think we have all the oil in the world right here at home.

    No clue. We are not allowed to get most of it out.

    I try to express a reasonable uncertainty about the enormously complex geopolitical relations in the world, and you jump on that as a sign of weakness because you think you’ve got it all figured out.

    That’s because every time I hear this sort of nonsense, indubitably, if you probe hard enough, you find out the people spouting about the complex geopolitical situation admit that they believe the fundamental reason the world is messed up is because of colonialism or capitalism, instead of the marxist propaganda from the KGB that helped these dysfunctional shitholes on this planet to avoid making the connection that all their problems are caused by the plethora of near psychotic practices they accept as common to their culture. Thank the idiotic concept of multiculturalism that tells you that you can not judge cultures held down by their own stupid beliefs and practices as inferior and less desirable.

    Is there anything you’re not sure about?

    As Bill Murray pointed out in that movie Ground Hog Day, I may be a god, just not sure which one. That was humor, BTW.

    Thumb up 0

  42. AlexInCT *

    So you don’t think we could cut our defense spending to help with the debt situation and use the rest to invest in items like missile defense, and other defensive weapons and strategies rather than having bases everywhere just waiting for a reason to go on the attack?

    There are no perfect defense systems. Pearl Harbor and 9-11 should have made that obvious by now. In the nuclear age, the defensive missiles system(s) you propose would cost us orders of magnitude more than the defense spending we do now. All the enemy needs to do is to overwhelm the system or go around it. Yes, a missile system is a good thing, but only as part of a comprehensive military startegy. As the sole guarantor of your security, it is a death wish. If forced to play defense, I prefer to play defense on their soil. That way they kill their own people when they target us.

    BTW, the reason we have bases everywhere is because in the third of the century before we did that we where dragged into 2 horrible world conflicts. Those bases you so dislike are the only reason the Cold War stayed cold. If your problem is that we are paying for Europe’s defense, then I recommend you champion what I have been saying for a while now: charge the Europeans. Isolationism doesn’t work. It didn’t even work back when they came up with the concept, because, as I already pointed out, we got dragged into 2 world wars. I can guarantee you that playing at isolationists will only guarantee us another war.

    And as others pointed out, pretending we are in the hole we are now by blaming defense spending for it is stupid. Our big nanny state is what is eating up the bulk of the resources.

    Thumb up 0

  43. AlexInCT *

    Aside: Obviously Big O has got to go. I CANNOT BELIEVE MY CHOICE IS GINGRICH OR ROMNEY OR MAYBE IF A STAR EXPLODES PAUL. Is there no one in national politics that doesn’t make me want to wall them up in an abandoned missile silo?

    At this point I am convinced Charles Manson would do a better job than Obama, so that’s how I am voting. The political class has also made it so distasteful for anyone of character to want to deal with politics in general, that we are stuck with dregs being the only ones interested.

    Thumb up 1

  44. Seattle Outcast

    I CANNOT BELIEVE MY CHOICE IS GINGRICH OR ROMNEY OR MAYBE IF A STAR EXPLODES PAUL. Is there no one in national politics that doesn’t make me want to wall them up in an abandoned missile silo?

    Your choice of “Giant Douche” – pick one, and hope it’s flavored. Infinitely preferable to the “Shit Sandwich” that is Obama. Doesn’t matter what type of shit it is, (I’m going to complete bullshit), it’s still a shit sandwich.

    Thumb up 1

  45. davidst
    You think we have all the oil in the world right here at home.

    All of it? No. More than the Middle East? Yes.

    EROIE is half or worse light crude. There’s a lot of it, but it’s hard to get at. Production not only costs more, but daily production yields are not expected as high as for similar size light crude deposits because of external factors (water supply for example).

    It will be good to have it, but it will not supply as much as we would like. It will also take some time for production to ramp up… when it does get going it will be much appreciated for a decade or so.

    Thumb up 0

  46. Seattle Outcast

    You know, I’ve been hearing that same line of defeatist BS for decades. I have total faith that we will develop methods to cheaply and effectively suck all the oil out of shale. You know why? Because every time people say “it can’t be done” someone decides to prove them wrong.

    Remember, we were supposed to run out of oil by 1985….

    Thumb up 4

  47. Section8

    There are no perfect defense systems. Pearl Harbor and 9-11 should have made that obvious by now.

    Agreed, but I never made such a claim, perhaps that was a response to someone else.

    In the nuclear age, the defensive missiles system(s) you propose would cost us orders of magnitude more than the defense spending we do now. All the enemy needs to do is to overwhelm the system or go around it.

    As opposed to bases on foreign soil? Wouldn’t those missiles simply fly over those bases?

    Yes, a missile system is a good thing, but only as part of a comprehensive military startegy. As the sole guarantor of your security, it is a death wish.

    Oh wait, an expensive system is now ok again as long as it’s on top of an equally bloated set of obligations. Agreed again, but I don’t think I stated it should be the sole guarantor. I’m just not for funding our allies to the extent that we do.

    If forced to play defense, I prefer to play defense on their soil. That way they kill their own people when they target us.

    Again, no argument there, we have other tools at our disposal such as a navy, long range missiles and aircraft when we do need to go into battle, as well as asking for temporary support if a country is willing. We were able to take out plenty of the enemy both WWI and WWII without having any preceding bases there. It was all fought on their soil. How about France or Germany or China? I’m sure they don’t want to be attacked any more than we do. Can they set up bases everywhere too? We don’t need bases everywhere to be in a position to make sure most of the damage is done to the other side.

    BTW, the reason we have bases everywhere is because in the third of the century before we did that we where dragged into 2 horrible world conflicts. Those bases you so dislike are the only reason the Cold War stayed cold. If your problem is that we are paying for Europe’s defense, then I recommend you champion what I have been saying for a while now: charge the Europeans.

    And if they say no, we’re not paying and maybe even get out? Do we strong arm them? I thought they were our allies.

    Isolationism doesn’t work. It didn’t even work back when they came up with the concept, because, as I already pointed out, we got dragged into 2 world wars. I can guarantee you that playing at isolationists will only guarantee us another war.

    Oh wait, we’re not there because we’re their our allies, we’re there because they are unruly fucks that need our undivided attention. Shit, if that’s the case I can’t even begin to wonder why they think we’re assholes. I honestly couldn’t figure it out and got offended when some foreign bastard would hint at it, but this is certainly an education experience for me.

    And as others pointed out, pretending we are in the hole we are now by blaming defense spending for it is stupid. Our big nanny state is what is eating up the bulk of the resources.

    A dollar toward debt is a dollar toward debt. I didn’t excuse our nanny state, and I certainly don’t advocate it, but holy shit if it’s suggested someone’s favorite program might be a good candidate for downsizing, all arguments are on the table, from our imperialistic Founding Fathers, to racism, to whatever. Of course it’s only blasphemy if the left do it, otherwise crickets.

    Alex, the military is like an umbrella, you don’t have to have it open every day while you walk around because it rained once and might rain again. You keep it handy and use it to its potential when necessary, but after a while keeping it open all the time just waiting for it to rain starts to become more of a liability than an asset.

    Thumb up 0

  48. richtaylor365

    we have other tools at our disposal such as a navy

    Did you happen to catch the WSJ article this morning on our ever shrinking navy?

    Not since the days of the Monitor and the Merrimack has the US Navy been this small or this old.

    Thumb up 0

  49. CM

    You know, I’ve been hearing that same line of defeatist BS for decades. I have total faith that we will develop methods to cheaply and effectively suck all the oil out of shale. You know why? Because every time people say “it can’t be done” someone decides to prove them wrong.

    France has gone so far as to ban fracking because of the effects. Bulgaria too.

    Vermont is considering a ban too.

    Thumb up 0

  50. Seattle Outcast

    Excuse me while while I don’t a flying fuck about what the whining little surrender monkeys do. Or the French for that matter.

    I’ve seen both sides of the hydraulic fracturing argument; so far I’d say the alarmist know-nothing ecotard farction has been the loudest, but with the least amount of actual data.

    Thumb up 3

  51. Section8

    Not since the days of the Monitor and the Merrimack has the US Navy been this small or this old.

    Well then there is where we can start to invest rather than subsidizing everyone else, and we could still cut some of the military budget to help pay down the debt, and yes Alex, along with taking the axe to the nanny state. It’s priorities and budgeting. Do we want to continue to span the globe in the name of preventing Hitler II and pissing off the world more at great expense to us, or do we want to make sure we are secure financially and militarily? And many around the world are indeed pissed off at us. Whether right or wrong, for real or imagined reasons doesn’t make much of a difference. That’s just the way it is, and we need to dictate our policy accordingly to our best interests, and more of the same (which I believe you somewhat agree) isn’t it.

    Thumb up 0

  52. Xetrov

    Production not only costs more

    The last study commissioned by Congress in the 80’s shows that extracting oil from shale becomes economically worth it at $40/barrel. With current and developing techniques, it drops below $40/barrel. What’s oil trading at these days?

    Thumb up 1

  53. HARLEY

    Aside: Obviously Big O has got to go. I CANNOT BELIEVE MY CHOICE IS GINGRICH OR ROMNEY OR MAYBE IF A STAR EXPLODES PAUL. Is there no one in national politics that doesn’t make me want to wall them up in an abandoned missile silo?

    JIM DO YOU REMEMBER, THE POST FROM 4 YEARS AGO, ABOUT NOT WANTING TO VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN, JUST BECAUSE YOU FEAR WHAT THE DEMOCRAT WILL DO?OR WAS THAT 8 YEARS AGO..? HMM

    Thumb up 0

  54. davidst

    The last study commissioned by Congress in the 80′s shows that extracting oil from shale becomes economically worth it at $40/barrel. With current and developing techniques, it drops below $40/barrel. What’s oil trading at these days?

    Yes, it’s economical now because we already took all the low hanging fruit. That actually proves the point of peak oil. The technology has been available for 25 years, but was too expensive to use. The technology didn’t get cheaper, the oil got more energy expensive justifying the technology. Will the technology get cheaper (more energy efficient) now that we start relying on it? Of course, but there’s only so much you can do given the physical nature of the process. The improvement will be very marginal. The first oil we used had 100:1 net energy (you hit the ground with a shovel and oil gushed out). Then we drilled deeper and started pressurizing dying wells. Our best returns today are around 20:1. Shales are 10:1 at best, and tar sands are 5:1 at best.

    This paints a clear picture of a limited resource that is being used up. There’s a lot of crap on “The oil drum”, but there was recently a really good article comparing oil production to gold mining. I’m curious if you (any of you) have read a peak oil analysis of this quality before. If so, what are your criticisms of it? http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8697

    Thumb up 0

  55. hist_ed

    Not since the days of the Monitor and the Merrimack has the US Navy been this small or this old.

    The important measure is relative strength. Each one of our 11 carrier battle groups could defeat all but the largest 2 or 3 navies in the world. The entire USN could just about take on every other navy in world. There hasn’t so large an imbalance in naval power in history (at its height, Royal Navy policy was for the RN to be as big as the next two navies combined). While I view US naval dominance as a good thing, let’s not get too carried away with bemoaning the navy’s decline. Of all the services, it should be the one to face some cuts.

    Thumb up 1

  56. HARLEY

    spot on ed, one US Navy Arleigh Burke class destroyer, has more firepower than the entire union navy in 1864.
    Also, the Marines are being cut to, its land forces, and reorganizing back to be a amphibious force in stead of a 2nd Army, as it is now.

    Thumb up 0

  57. AlexInCT *

    Oh wait, an expensive system is now ok again as long as it’s on top of an equally bloated set of obligations.

    The cost of JUST a missile defense system as a defense system would run in the trillions. If you have other military capabilities to compliment it, you can get bye with a much, much, smaller missile system, at a fraction of the costs of a missile system alone. Not to mention that you have far more options than just hoping the system alone defends you once things go to shit.

    Agreed again, but I don’t think I stated it should be the sole guarantor. I’m just not for funding our allies to the extent that we do.

    See, this however isn’t anything close to what Paul is saying. Paul is actually very clear that he feels we should pull back from everywhere and completely gut the military. He reminds me of the idiots that kept telling us that the only way to prevent nuclear war with the USSR was for us to unilaterally disarm. Charging our allies for the protection we provide them, and they then turn around and constantly second guess us on like the ingrates they are – I would rather they just give us a thank you and shut up – or making them pay their fair share, are all ideas we should explore, but that’s NOT what Paul is talking about. And to pretend that is the case, is disingenuous.

    And if they say no, we’re not paying and maybe even get out? Do we strong arm them? I thought they were our allies.

    Funny how despite all the talk about how they don’t like our bases or our troops, they scream bloody murder when we do point out we are pulling out. Look at Japan, Korea, and even Germany, where we reduced troop strength and the people there went bonkers. Even in Iraq it was our choice to leave, and the Iraqi government is kicking itself for not being able to find a way to both save face and keep the troops.

    As for the strong arm part: we are the ones that told them they could slack on their obligations after the USSR imploded. We are the ones that led them to the point where they believe they have the right to have their cake and eat it too. Encouraging the nonsense they believe in – that the bunch of crooks in the UN or the ICC can handle all issues, for example, instead of the fact that the ability to punch assholes in the mouth when they want to fight – is a big part of our problem. But the belief that us pulling out from these forward bases, which I should point out leave our military in a better position to deal with the many shitholes around the planet, will change how seriously the nanny state Europeans take their defense obligations seriously, is just dumb.

    Yes, we need to make them pay more of they do not build up their own defensive capability. Maybe we can start getting them to take their defense seriously if we charged them for the expenses our Navy incurs protecting their oil flow from the ME. But pulling out will not make anything better, and it will definitely NOT save us money in the long run, because we will be dragged into the next conflict regardless of how hard we try to pretend we can just ignore what is going on in the rest of the world.

    Thumb up 0

  58. richtaylor365

    While I view US naval dominance as a good thing, let’s not get too carried away with bemoaning the navy’s decline. Of all the services, it should be the one to face some cuts.

    From my link:

    The U.S. needs 11 aircraft carriers, even when no other country has more than one, because no other country does what it does. American military power has ensured global peace and prosperity since World War II. The Navy is the symbol and instrument of America’s ability to project power. Its deterioration would hasten the end of the Pax Americana, carrying a high and dangerous price for the world.

    The seas are vast and wide, look at how much mischief those rag tag Somali pirates have caused, and that is just one area of the Indian Ocean. And yes, one carrier group is pretty powerful, but even the Pentagon is well aware of Chinese counters. As cheap as they are to manufacture, yes, the defense systems that envelope carrier groups would stop some of them, but if a few dozen of these missiles were fired at a carrier simultaneously? Hell, we don’t even know all the capabilities of their new J-20 strike fighter.

    Thumb up 1

  59. davidst
    That actually proves the point of peak oil.

    Irrelevant Conclusion and False Cause.

    And SO accused me of pseudo-intellectualism… Way to completely ignore my entire argument connecting the increasing economic viability of higher cost oil recovery methods over the last century with declining quality of oil reserves. I guess we’re digging miles beneath the ocean, drilling into shale rock and digging up tars sands just for shits and giggles.

    By the way, I used prove in sense of “supports” or “strongly supports”. Anyone who was intellectually honest (or capable) would have realized that and analyzed my argument rather than jumping on a little semantic issue. Go ahead and quote anything but my argument again and prove me right. Give me another thumbs down while you’re at it.

    Thumb up 0

  60. Seattle Outcast

    Way to completely ignore my entire argument connecting the increasing economic viability of higher cost oil recovery methods over the last century with declining quality of oil reserves

    .

    First of all, the oil reserves aren’t “declining”, we’ve barely even scratched the surface of how much oil is available to be recovered. We haven’t even finished up with the easy stuff to go get that technology from 50 years ago would allow us to extract.

    Second, you might want to check the cost of oil production in adjusted dollars. You’ll notice that once you strip it down to the cost of production, oil is still extremely cheap. Mainly because the planet is just filled with the stuff.

    Then we can go into a discussion abiotic oil, which isn’t nearly as discredited as the ecotards out there would like us to believe.

    Finally, per “peak oil” alarmists, we should have run out of oil, completely, 25 years ago, instead of increasing production.

    Thumb up 2

  61. sahrab

    And SO accused me of pseudo-intellectualism… Way to completely ignore my entire argument connecting the increasing economic viability of higher cost oil recovery methods over the last century with declining quality of oil reserves.

    I’m not going to speak for Xeterov, he’s perfectly capable of refuting your idiology (or is that idology?).

    But i’m going to guess, and this is based entirely on your posting content so far, that you do not grasp the concept of jumping to a false conclusion, you might want to ask your political professor what the term Cognitive Distortion means.

    You continue to beat the (false)drum that Scarcity increases Value. You mistakenly lump the price of oil as an example of this. Two issue with your supposition.

    First – Oil is not scarce, and while it maybe a finite resource, we’re (humanity) nowhere near the limit of it. (many on here have already posted links that refute your assumption, yet you continue to harp this line).

    Second – the cause for the increase in the price of crude has nothign to do with a resource hitting its (imaginary) finite limit. It has everything to do with the Supplier (OPEC) increasing the demand (World) by limiting availability and thereby increasing the value.

    How many millions will you give me for the single kernel of corn that was in mondays morning shit? According to you this scarce resource is ungodly valuable and i am on easy street.

    Thumb up 0

  62. Xetrov

    And SO accused me of pseudo-intellectualism

    Pseudo-intellectualism has nothing to do with you trying to make a point using two logical fallacies. I’m sorry you’re so sad that I used the quickest method to outline your complete failure to demonstrate a point.

    Thumb up 0

  63. davidst

    SO: I didn’t say reserves are declining, I said quality was declining. What ultimately matters is daily net production vs. consumption demand. Your shale oil or oil sands can produce for 100 years, but each source can only produce a few million barrels per day because there are physical limitations to the daily rate of production (based on available water near the shales I think). Peak oil is about rate of net production and net recoverable reserves, not total reserves remaining. Net production rate could peak well before or after the total resource is extracted depending on the physical dynamics of extraction.

    As for abiotic oil (assuming it’s not bullshit), that merely turns oil into a renewable resource assuming the process operates on human timescales. There is still a peak production curve on a renewable resource if you harvest it faster than the renewal rate. We’re definitely harvesting individual fields faster than their renewal rates if there is such a thing.

    Sahrab: I did not equate scarcity with value in a vacuum. For increasing scarcity (decreasing supply) to cause an increase in value, demand must stay constant or increase. Considering that global GDP is oil constrained and our oil reliant infrastructure cannot be replaced without decades of effort (that should be obvious), we have little immediate control over demand other than throttling the entire economy.

    As for OPEC artificially decreasing supply, OPEC constricts supply to raise prices in supply to U.S. monetary shenanigans. They may also do it for political reasons of course. However, if America engages in QE to pump up the stock market (as we did twice), it inevitably pumps up oil as well. Nixon went off the gold standard in 71 and devalued the dollar, hence OPEC embargoed to drive the price up to correct level before resuming sales. I remember reading some commentary (I think Matt Taibbi’s Griftopia) that remarked about how the price went from 3 or 4 per barrel to 12 because of the embargo, but didn’t go back down after the embargo ceased! Well duh Matt! It’s called inflation. The whole point of the embargo was to quickly force the price to the correct market level. The 2008 spike was caused mostly by speculators as stocks and other things were dumped for commodities. In the aftermath, the destroyed economy reduced demand bringing the price way back down from which point it has been steadily increasing due to inflation (among other things).

    Thumb up 0

  64. Seattle Outcast

    I said quality was declining.

    Define “quality”… I’m a Quality Engineer, so your definition of “quality” might be amusing to me, but the terms must be defined in order to ensure that everyone is talking about the same thing.

    each source can only produce a few million barrels per day because there are physical limitations to the daily rate of production

    You source water as a production limiter, but you must surely realize that, given the motivation, such trivial matters can easily be overcome with something as simple as a pipeline to a water source. The engineering needed do this was available a century ago.

    There is still a peak production curve on a renewable resource if you harvest it faster than the renewal rate. We’re definitely harvesting individual fields faster than their renewal rates if there is such a thing

    Considering that idle fields come back into production decades later, and that there are huge unexploited reserves to access in the meantime, this is a meaningless point and debatable for its accuracy.

    Considering that global GDP is oil constrained and our oil reliant infrastructure cannot be replaced without decades of effort (that should be obvious), we have little immediate control over demand other than throttling the entire economy.

    This is a false leader – eliminating the restrictions on development would lead to massive private industry investments into infrastructure, leading to increased supply.

    As for the rest of your post – you pretty much made the case for somebody shooting Soros in the head as a favor for humanity as well as the expansion of domestic oil production in order to reduce the amount of world economic power that OPEC enjoys.

    Thumb up 1

  65. hohokiss

    Thank the idiotic concept of multiculturalism that tells you that you can not judge cultures held down by their own stupid beliefs and practices as inferior and less desirable

    ….which arrogantly defies what Bubba alone may declare US -constitutional, the only law the world requires.And if you disagree, death to you.

    Thumb up 0

  66. hohokiss

    This is a false leader – eliminating the restrictions on development would lead to massive private industry investments into infrastructure, leading to increased supply.

    I worked in oil-rich Nigeria when it came into oil money, increased its supply and improved its infrastructure but it didn’t seem to work out so well, despite everyones spending freely

    Thumb up 0

  67. davidst
    I said quality was declining.

    Define “quality”… I’m a Quality Engineer, so your definition of “quality” might be amusing to me, but the terms must be defined in order to ensure that everyone is talking about the same thing.

    A high quality source of oil is easy to obtain and transport and the oil itself is of high quality (having an optimal assortment of hydrocarbons and lack of sulfur making it easy to refine into the most demanded products). On the opposite end of the scale, you can lower the quality of any or all of those traits. The lowest quality being tar sand pits that take an enormous amount of energy to dig up, haul around (can’t pipe it) and refine.

    each source can only produce a few million barrels per day because there are physical limitations to the daily rate of production

    You source water as a production limiter, but you must surely realize that, given the motivation, such trivial matters can easily be overcome with something as simple as a pipeline to a water source. The engineering needed do this was available a century ago.

    I’m guessing that piping water in would ruin the energy return rate making the net energy unprofitable.

    There is still a peak production curve on a renewable resource if you harvest it faster than the renewal rate. We’re definitely harvesting individual fields faster than their renewal rates if there is such a thing

    Considering that idle fields come back into production decades later, and that there are huge unexploited reserves to access in the meantime, this is a meaningless point and debatable for its accuracy.

    Here’s how I understand it. Oil is naturally under pressure most of the time. So you tap a new well and the oil just comes out by itself. Eventually, the pressure subsides and the oil company has to artificially increase the pressure by pumping in steam/water forcing more oil out. The process of pumping the water in and heating it becomes more energy expensive as the well empties out because you have to maintain the pressure and temperature in an ever larger volume of water. Eventually the well becomes unprofitable due to the high energy expense of pressurizing the well. The well may become economical again as the cost of production continually rises and exceeds the cost that forced the well to be abandoned. Much as with the newly viable oil shales, resumption of old wells supports and is predicted by the peak oil thesis.

    Considering that global GDP is oil constrained and our oil reliant infrastructure cannot be replaced without decades of effort (that should be obvious), we have little immediate control over demand other than throttling the entire economy.

    This is a false leader – eliminating the restrictions on development would lead to massive private industry investments into infrastructure, leading to increased supply.

    Ah, I meant transportation infrastructure that drinks up the oil, not the infrastructure for producing more oil. A big portion of the transportation infrastructure (i.e. our cars) have to be replaced by individual citizens not businesses.

    As for the rest of your post – you pretty much made the case for somebody shooting Soros in the head as a favor for humanity as well as the expansion of domestic oil production in order to reduce the amount of world economic power that OPEC enjoys.

    My contrary economic sources (again let me recommend Eric Janszen’s 2010 book) insist that we have not left significant amounts of oil in the ground due to environmentalists. At best there may be 5 or 10 years worth off the coast of California and a bit more in other places. Plus we’re starting to tap those shales and tar sands. If we have the timing right, America may be much better off than anywhere else in the world. Think of the oil we’ve kept until now as an insurance policy in case oil production really does go into decline. We can tap California’s oil as a last resort and use the extra years of cheap liquid fuels to build alt fuel infrastructure without screwing the economy as bad. And the state won’t be able to stop the Fed if they make a national security interest out of it.

    Thumb up 0

  68. Seattle Outcast

    A high quality source of oil is easy to obtain and transport

    As I said, amusing…..

    Much as with the newly viable oil shales, resumption of old wells supports and is predicted by the peak oil thesis.

    What I was referring to earlier about old wells becoming productive again had nothing to do with cost. The previously tapped reserves sometimes start producing again without the need for pressurizing the field.

    There’s more to oil than most people know.

    Ah, I meant transportation infrastructure that drinks up the oil, not the infrastructure for producing more oil. A big portion of the transportation infrastructure (i.e. our cars) have to be replaced by individual citizens not busines

    And now the ecotard comes out. Is this your primary goal – using discredited “peak oil theory” to get people to adhere to a “green” lifestyle?

    Thumb up 2

  69. davidst

    And now the ecotard comes out. Is this your primary goal – using discredited “peak oil theory” to get people to adhere to a “green” lifestyle?

    Any moron that tries to save energy for any reason other than saving himself money is a fool. All it does is lowers prices for every other energy consumer who will then pick up the slack. Especially for oil since we use every drop we can find. And you know what’s next? We’re not going to roll out alt energy infrastructure ahead of the decline, so we’re not going to be able to afford clean alt energy. We’re going to burn coal for the next 100 years and build nuclear plants until we run out of uranium. The hippies are going to die of despair or asphyxiation. Economic efficiency will always trump ideological bullshit. And by the same token, I’m pretty sure oil is going to decline whether you like it or not. Abiotic oil is probably a fringe denialist theory and I’m sure depleted wells can refill from the source shale.. at a rate that will mean fuck-all when it comes to stopping our steadily declining production rate of energy liquids. G’night.

    Thumb up 0

  70. AlexInCT *

    Especially for oil since we use every drop we can find.

    As others have already pointed out, this is blatantly false and erroneous observation. We have an artificially created supply and demand curve – by cartels like OPEC, which basically lower production whenever the price drops below what they feel it should cost per barrel, or by government which uses taxes on oil products to artificially drive cost up and make people use less – and we are no where near producing what our current capacity allows. We could have oil at $5 a barrel if we pumped every drop of it we could find.

    Economic efficiency will always trump ideological bullshit.

    You must not be paying attention to the green movement then. Ideology, used to justify a power transfer scheme by disgruntled assholes pretending to be representing the people, is the only driver there. They defy economics and efficiency, and tell you that you are evil for daring to oppose this insanity on their part.

    Before any idiot tries to dispute this they should google the current admission by the German government that their foray into solar energy not only has been a costly, abysmal failure, but that they knew it would be just that. And they still can’t shake it. Then google Spain and green economy, Solyndra, and Obama and green energy failures. And we are finally getting some truth about how much money these green crooks have pissed away – well, given to their friends – despite the LSM and the governments trying to cover the facts up. The green movement is really a red one in every aspect: it has both our financial ledgers in the red and it is run by communists masquerading their agenda as a concern for the environment.

    And by the same token, I’m pretty sure oil is going to decline whether you like it or not.

    I will speak for myself, but I have never believed otherwise. Oil eventually will run out. Just like the planet’s temperature changes. That’s nature/reality for ya. However, I would like our reliance on oil to wean by itself, as oil really runs out. Not by force/coercion, as it is currently done, by people that lie about how they are doing it to save the planet, but really are doing it to make themselves tons of money, on the back of the very rubes that bought their roving pack of lies, that are blocking our ability to get it and use it. That is bullshit.

    Thumb up 0

  71. balthazar

    Wow, and in comes CM with his useless “ban fracking” screed.

    The only “study” performed on fracking has actually been disproved as they didnt take into account methane deposits and content in the soil that were there before the fracking started.

    Try again.

    Or maybe post a study that hasnt been disproved for starting with a false premise. Yeah no baseline data is ALWAYS a good starting point

    “Researchers said that while they lacked base-line data, the higher levels of methane within one kilometer of nearby gas wells were so strongly correlated statistically that it would be difficult to conclude that they were caused by anything else.”

    Thumb up 2

  72. davidst

    I would like our reliance on oil to wean by itself, as oil really runs out.

    I used to think that. Just let the market take care of it. As oil declines, it will drive prices up and that will drive innovation for new energy technologies. Simple. The problem is that we’re talking about going to lesser forms of energy. The economy will be contracting and oil will have no upfront investment cost. Alt energy will look unaffordable and people will just hope that the oil comes back (they will do what you’re doing now, and blame the problem exclusively on foreign machinations). It’s very similar to how people are mostly thinking we’ll just cycle out of this depression eventually. It’s not going to happen, and I’m increasingly suspecting that the two problems are related.

    Thumb up 0

  73. davidst

    Should I choose a pole and stick with it? Why stay in the political cages that are kept for us? Ideology is for people who can’t or won’t think for themselves.

    Thumb up 0

  74. Seattle Outcast

    What I meant was that you’re inconsistent with yourself. You spend two days building up a case for one point of view, only to disown it entirely in one post.

    My first thought is that you haven’t really absorbed and integrated your various political viewpoints, and are using this blog as a forum for doing so.

    Thumb up 2

  75. davidst

    I think people (myself definitely included) have a natural tendency to do just that. To integrate, absorb and eventually settle on a permanent viewpoint. And then to ruthlessly suppress cognitive dissonance and stay with that view point regardless of how reality changes around us. Especially if the thinking binds you to a larger group. Societal structures encourage in-group conformity at every level. What’s the chance that the stuff one individual or group happens to believe is all correct? The only antidote is to constantly question your assumptions and analyze whatever data is available.

    My first major change in thinking was from neo-conservativism to libertarianism at least 5 years ago. I think it was an improvement, but I settled in for the long haul again. And why not? It’s not like it had any real effect on my life.

    My current change in thinking is from politically framed thinking to apolitical thinking, and it started shortly after I finished paying off my car last year. For the first time I had some money in need of investing or protecting, and I bought a little gold and silver. They both took a temporary dive, but silver harder than gold and didn’t climb back up as quickly. I realized that if I was going to do any more investing I had better figure what is really going on in the world. At the end of the day, my motivation is greed. I’d hope a conservative could appreciate that!

    Thumb up 0

  76. CM

    Just like the planet’s temperature changes. That’s nature/reality for ya.

    Yeah and because someone got murdered somewhere last week, the guy that died up the road yesterday must have been also murdered. That makes sense.

    Thumb up 0

  77. hist_ed

    The problem is that we’re talking about going to lesser forms of energy. The economy will be contracting and oil will have no upfront investment cost. Alt energy will look unaffordable and people will just hope that the oil comes back

    Davidst, do you think people in 1940 thought much about nuclear power or natural gas when they were discussing energy consumption? Do you think people in 1830 talked much about petroleum products as they bemoaned the increase price of whale oil? As the English debated what to do about the declining number of trees to burn in 1650, how many of them thought “Hey, we’ll dig up black rocks and burn them.”?

    The rate of technological change right now is far far greater than in any of the times I mentioned above. Who knows what will power stuff 30 or 40 years from now.

    And even if we don’t get workable fusion or whatever else the next energy source is, you actually hit the nail on the head in your post above even as you dismissed it. The price of oil right now is pretty high so the tougher oil is marketable. Even if the government wasn’t throwing money at unicorn fart companies, others would be investing (a hell of a lot more rationally, too) in them. The market will take care of the end of oil whenever that comes. It might not be pretty for everyone (them whale oil salesmen probably suffered a bit economically), but it will happen.

    And why does it make sense for us to spend a shitload of money now? If the economy works the way it always has, in 2050 the planet will be wealthier with a lot more advanced technology to tackle the problem What happens if we invest a shitload of money into unicorn fart distribution infrastructure and then some geek comes up with a way to power things from the semen of garden gnomes that is cheaper and more efficient? How about we throw billions at it when we have a better idea of what works?

    Thumb up 2

  78. CM

    And why does it make sense for us to spend a shitload of money now?

    Because it will cost exponentially more later to adapt to a planet which is more fucked than it would have been.

    Thumb up 0

  79. davidst

    hist_ed: What you’re saying is that you’re willing to bet on human technological progress. I’ve mostly run out of faith in that.

    How are you measuring technological change by the way? Just… anecdotal evidence?

    As for the world being wealthier in 2050, honestly since oil tracks GDP and oil will decline, we very likely will be much poorer in 2050. This recession is just the beginning. It will be much harder to build out alt energy when we get broker every year as a matter of course. We already don’t want to put up the cost even while our economies were growing.

    Thumb up 0

  80. Seattle Outcast

    So, CM you’d rather waste trillions now on boondoggles and politically favored frauds (global warming, sustainability, green energy, etc) than directed spending on actual solutions later?

    How are you measuring technological change by the way? Just… anecdotal evidence?

    Most people look at it historically: stone age, bronze age, iron age, age of exploration, industrial revolution, etc.

    Or you could just remember that knowledge and technology build exponentially.

    Thumb up 2

  81. davidst

    That’s why I have no hope for solving the problems. Government has been captured by financial interests. Our only options are to give them more money under the guise of liberal activities, or to give them more money under the guise of conservative activities.

    In a time of drastic change it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped only to live in a world that no longer exists.
    ―Eric Hoffer

    Thumb up 0

  82. AlexInCT *

    I used to think that. Just let the market take care of it. As oil declines, it will drive prices up and that will drive innovation for new energy technologies. Simple. The problem is that we’re talking about going to lesser forms of energy.

    What lesser forms would that be? To me, with my engineering background, it has always been obvious that the alternative for now was nuclear, tidal, or geothermal power. All three present challenges, but unlike the other stuff that the watermelons are pushing, they are viable and can produce the amount of power we need/will need. Wind will never be worth squat. Solar will not generate anything worth the cost unless it is done orbital: outside Earth’s atmosphere and unaffected by the planet’s rotation, because even when done in the tropics it means that it is not working 50% of the time (night). Fusion, if it does pan out and works, would be awesome. But there is a big “If” there. All that bio fuel nonsense is just that: the cost to make it, especially when it is fossil fuel that provides the energy to create it or food supplies are diverted to make it, makes the whole exercise redundantly idiotic. The left’s green movement is heavily invested in the least productive forms of energy generation, and that’s not a coincidence IMO.

    The economy will be contracting and oil will have no upfront investment cost. Alt energy will look unaffordable and people will just hope that the oil comes back (they will do what you’re doing now, and blame the problem exclusively on foreign machinations).

    With over 100 years of oil at projected consumption based on what we can extract right now, and with technology likely making even more oil viable in time, I think the way to look at this is that we have plenty of time for other scientific advances to fill in the gap. Again, this works great if we do focus on technologies that can and will deliver the amount of power we need. But if we let the watermelons dictate the technologies that will replace oil and how fast they want it done, like they are doing now, this will cost us all far more than it ever needs to and then still fail miserably. In the mean time the connected watermelons will all get rich and continue to have carbon footprints of a small city while we are forced to live by 19th century standards. Fuck that.

    It’s very similar to how people are mostly thinking we’ll just cycle out of this depression eventually.

    The people thinking like that seem to have a serious overlap with the very people that are the vanguard of the force of watermelons I mention. That’s not a coincidence either,

    It’s not going to happen, and I’m increasingly suspecting that the two problems are related.

    They are: both are caused and exacerbated by the same group of idiots.

    Thumb up 1

  83. AlexInCT *

    Yeah and because someone got murdered somewhere last week, the guy that died up the road yesterday must have been also murdered. That makes sense.

    The more apt analogy CM would be one where we have multiple accidents of one kind or another, somewhere or anywhere, all happening over a long period of time, and then your average watermelon comes along and says that the last one HAS to be murder despite the proof that it is not because people with an agenda say by consensus it is so. And anyone that dares to point out the leftards that says it is murder are all wrong, get demonized and accused of being the one with the agenda.

    That is a scenario that more aptly descirbs what is going on.

    Thumb up 1

  84. AlexInCT *

    hist_ed: What you’re saying is that you’re willing to bet on human technological progress. I’ve mostly run out of faith in that.

    To use the analogy from the movie Ideocracy: have you been keeping track of the advances in hair replacement products and boner pills? Take a look at the last 3 decades and technologies. What about computers? Mobile phones? The internets? Medical treatments? Aviation? Even cars, if you ignore the boondoggles created by those pushing for cars powered by unicorn farts, today are advancing at a pace that is incredulous. Look, if there is a demand/need for technological advance and change, and there is money to be made by doing so, people will figure it out. That’s the natural mechanism that drives advancement. Those that think the world is unfair and that it is their job to make it fair are humanity’s worst enemies, because they believe they should suppress this mechanism that has been responsible for practically all modern advancements. Yes, even when government was involved.

    The fact that there is minimal advancement in alternative energy technologies and this stuff we are pushed to adopt performs so abysmally, is simply and precisely because there is no real need for these things – other than the artificial one created by scaremongering watermelons that hope to profit now from the gullible – yet, and government seems to be the main financial driver on both ends. The demand for this technology is artificial and solely sustained by those that hope to profit from it in government. And the financial profit is secondary to the big government agenda.

    Our big problem is that government today is basically run by the credentialed and academic class, with one of the vilest agendas ever to curse mankind, and its capabilities to drive innovation and growth are not even a shadow of what they were even a couple of decades ago. That’s the root of all our problems. The priesthood that is the legacy of marx’s insane and destructive ramblings are the ones driving all these agendas. Only they are the worst people possible to have picking whom/what should win and whom/what should lose, and then in the name of something as nebulous as “social justice”. We have decades and thousands of examples, if not millions, of how horrible government is at this stuff. And yet, we have a whole bunch of people that think government is the answer to all problems.

    Thumb up 0

  85. Seattle Outcast

    Wind will never be worth squat

    There are two ways to make wind power work, neither involves windmills. Both of them involve massive engineering constructs that force an artificial wind to run large turbines, and once in place involve minimal maintenance. And one of them even creates a massive greenhouse in which you can raise crops.

    Thumb up 0

  86. davidst

    What lesser forms would that be? To me, with my engineering background, it has always been obvious that the alternative for now was nuclear, tidal, or geothermal power. All three present challenges, but unlike the other stuff that the watermelons are pushing, they are viable and can produce the amount of power we need/will need.

    You’re right, but this will produce electricity for us to get us off coal and gas. Our immediate problem is a liquid fuels shortage (oil in particular). As I understand it, liquid fuel is convenient to transport and the most efficient and convenient way we know to power mechanical engines. Oil in particular is a stable liquid at a wide range of temperatures and normal atmospheric pressure, and it’s very dense (takes up less space per unit of energy), so replacing it with other liquid fuels won’t be an optimal situation.

    Wind will never be worth squat. Solar will not generate anything worth the cost unless it is done orbital: outside Earth’s atmosphere and unaffected by the planet’s rotation, because even when done in the tropics it means that it is not working 50% of the time (night). Fusion, if it does pan out and works, would be awesome. But there is a big “If” there. All that bio fuel nonsense is just that: the cost to make it, especially when it is fossil fuel that provides the energy to create it or food supplies are diverted to make it, makes the whole exercise redundantly idiotic. The left’s green movement is heavily invested in the least productive forms of energy generation, and that’s not a coincidence IMO.

    I think that’s all mostly true, although I’m not certain earth based solar is quite as useless as you say. Nuclear is good for a while, but eventually accessible uranium reserves peak and decline just as with oil. Obviously earth based solar must work in tandem with other systems unless we can build much better batteries. I think bio-fuel is about creating liquid fuel to supplement falling oil availability. As long as you get more liquid fuel out than you put in, it may be economically viable.

    To use the analogy from the movie Ideocracy: have you been keeping track of the advances in hair replacement products and boner pills? Take a look at the last 3 decades and technologies. What about computers? Mobile phones? The internets? Medical treatments? Aviation? Even cars, if you ignore the boondoggles created by those pushing for cars powered by unicorn farts, today are advancing at a pace that is incredulous. Look, if there is a demand/need for technological advance and change, and there is money to be made by doing so, people will figure it out. That’s the natural mechanism that drives advancement. Those that think the world is unfair and that it is their job to make it fair are humanity’s worst enemies, because they believe they should suppress this mechanism that has been responsible for practically all modern advancements. Yes, even when government was involved.

    Technology and computers increase efficiency, but don’t change the fact of finite fossil fuel reserves. Efficiency will be a big part of stretching the declining reserves as we change to renewable stuff. The question, as always, is about rates. Can we improve efficiency enough to make up for declining oil? Eventually we probably can, but the science takes time to produce results.

    The fact that there is minimal advancement in alternative energy technologies and this stuff we are pushed to adopt performs so abysmally, is simply and precisely because there is no real need for these things – other than the artificial one created by scaremongering watermelons that hope to profit now from the gullible – yet, and government seems to be the main financial driver on both ends. The demand for this technology is artificial and solely sustained by those that hope to profit from it in government. And the financial profit is secondary to the big government agenda.

    There is (or was) no immediate market need, not no real need. So government has to be the driver if we want to be ahead of the game. But the problem, as you point out, is that financial interests have captured so much of government that the money isn’t going where it should.

    Our big problem is that government today is basically run by the credentialed and academic class, with one of the vilest agendas ever to curse mankind, and its capabilities to drive innovation and growth are not even a shadow of what they were even a couple of decades ago. That’s the root of all our problems. The priesthood that is the legacy of marx’s insane and destructive ramblings are the ones driving all these agendas. Only they are the worst people possible to have picking whom/what should win and whom/what should lose, and then in the name of something as nebulous as “social justice”. We have decades and thousands of examples, if not millions, of how horrible government is at this stuff. And yet, we have a whole bunch of people that think government is the answer to all problems.

    I’d say liberal academics are just one tool in perpetuating the corrupted political system. Both parties have helped the financial elite maintain power. Greenspan was Chairman of the Fed from the end of Reagan’s second term to the middle of Bush’s second.

    Thumb up 0

  87. Seattle Outcast

    but don’t change the fact of finite fossil fuel reserves

    When you base all of your arguments off an assumption that you can’t prove and is seriously contended, expect all of your conclusions to be dismissed.

    Thumb up 2

  88. davidst

    I still don’t think that anyone but charlatans (and those duped by them) seriously contend that fossil fuel reserves are anything but finite. If they do regenerate, the rate would have to exceed the rate of depletion for it to help, and geological processes just don’t move very quickly. China doesn’t appear to believe in infinite fossil fuels.

    Thumb up 0

  89. AlexInCT *

    I still don’t think that anyone but charlatans (and those duped by them) seriously contend that fossil fuel reserves are anything but finite.

    Define finite. I would also point out that we have heard this “finite” argument ad nauseum about such essential commodities as clean water, food, and even the building blocks of the modern industrial complex such as metals. In the 1970s people believed, like you do about oil now, that we were doomed to run out of some if not most of these commodities, and that their prices would skyrocket as that happened, destroying our modern societies. Some understood that the problem would be addressed by ingenuity, which would always overcome these issues by finding brighter ways of extracting, recycling, or even creating these items. There even was a incredibly famous bet about this whole doomsday scenario that the left, till this day, still pretends never happened.

    Oil supplies as we define them today are finite, but who is to say that we do not find a way to make oil a few decades from now, even making it cheaply, making it the whole point moot? We where told in the same 1970s that we would be out of oil in 50 years tops. Now, less than 50 years later, we are saying that even if we assume a drastic upward curve in demand that we have well over 100 years – and by some accounts as much as 500 years – of oil out there. And that is based on what we so far have discovered, with technology allowing us to find, and yes even extract, oil from places they wouldn’t even have thought existed in the 1970s.

    By all means let the private sector explore alternatives. They might discover some real valuable stuff. Heck, government could even pay for some of this research. But what we have now is a disgrace. A big chunk of certain members of the world’s governments are all creating the illusion of a crisis so they can then steer money to those they are connected to and increase their power over the rubes. That’s not scientific and will never result in any real solution. What we will get is people paying more and more for energy and seeing themselves restricted more and more as the price climbs too high.

    Thumb up 1

  90. davidst

    A scientist can’t stop the average liberal nimrod from taking their careful analysis and running off a cliff with it. Hubbard’s original peak oil production was based on oil production and exploration in the lower-48 states and was accurate for conventional oil production in the lower-48 states. However, trying to generalize that to the rest of the world without more data was bound to fail. Today we are in a much different position. We can predict global resource depletion as the sum of well understood local depletion rates based on 40 additional years of data. Oil depletion is probably understood better than anything else.

    Compare that to the goal of determining the human effect on global warming and projecting it into the future. You must try to understand the entire earth as a system with no local case studies to back it up. All you have is past and present data and your computer model to project the entire system into the future. You use the data from 1900 to 1950 (data that is suspicious to begin with) and then try to make a prediction that fits the 1950 to 2000 data. Then you have to assume (hope; pray) that that model is accurate enough to take your 1900 to 2000 data and project it into the far future. Peak oil is far easier to believe in than determining the rate of global warming (much less estimating the human impact).

    Thumb up 0

  91. CM

    So, CM you’d rather waste trillions now on boondoggles and politically favored frauds (global warming, sustainability, green energy, etc) than directed spending on actual solutions later?

    Obviously I don’t agree with the wording of your question, but then you’d know that and wouldn’t care.
    But it’s a matter of sensible risk management.

    The more apt analogy CM would be one where we have multiple accidents of one kind or another, somewhere or anywhere, all happening over a long period of time, and then your average watermelon comes along and says that the last one HAS to be murder despite the proof that it is not because people with an agenda say by consensus it is so. And anyone that dares to point out the leftards that says it is murder are all wrong, get demonized and accused of being the one with the agenda.

    That is a scenario that more aptly descirbs what is going on.

    Nope, not at all. You’ve got it exactly backwards. Suggesting that changes in the planet’s climate now is nothing to be concerned about because the climate has changed before (and therefore changes must therefore be natural) is fully reliant on ignoring the actual reasons and causes. It’s embracing and celebrating blatant ignorance. Which fits my analogy. Yours is patently just nonsense.

    This whole discussion is pointless if it doesn’t involve consideration of the large elephant in the room. Even if you consider it from just a risk management perspective.

    Thumb up 0