Keith and MM,
My point was that it might not matter any longer who is elected, "the sh-t is about to hit the fan". The World, not necessary the World population, is telling the Americans that their pillage and excesses are at the end. I tried to give a very short excerpt of reasons for this conclusion and by that invited an unnecessary discussion about details. It is not OPEC who has to carry the traditional US search for Scapegoats, it is much simpler than that. It is a lack of resources for the future!!!!!!! It becomes more and more obvious that we are at the top of world oil production, maybe with a couple of percent margin. Added to this is the rise of internal demands in former USSR and China. The latter is already out and competing for contracts from the traditional suppliers to US and developed countries. In this scenario, it is no space for US growth in use of oil. What is left is to realize that an orderly decline is the best option. SUVs should have been banned years ago, among other needed actions. It is a lot of luxury energy use that can and will be cut. The impact of this is more a reduction of industrial production, than survival of mankind. This will have very painful economical and social upheavals for US and might already be a part of the lack of growth in US employment. It is several direct relationships. The key is an orderly retreat and adoption to high energy costs, with a major supply from renewable sources. This will also give new employment opportunities and a growth in the agriculture sector, who for years have not been given the importance it deserves. This process is inevitable and the question is how painful it will be and since the deadline is set, how can it be organized in the best way? This is why four more Bush years leads to consequences for the US population, that I would not like to see. I agree that it is tempting to make the Americans suffer for their ignorance and choice, but I do not want them to suffer and Bush & Co will not personally suffer for what they are doing. They will retire with wealth enough, to avoid to share the hardship of the people and the historical record for Bush, will not be worse than it already is. Energy conservation and efficiency is the key in the future. Hakan At 21:35 05/04/2004, you wrote: >Hi MM > > > >I do tend to think it's ordinary people that matter. After Bush was > > >elected, or unelected or whatever, I was saying it might be a Good > > >Thing because the sheer in-your-face audacity of it would wake a lot > > >of people up who'd have slumbered on happily with business-as-usual > > >under Gore. It was quite a long time before I saw other people > > >beginning to say that. Now quite a few are, and, though it's a bit of > > >a struggle, I still tend to think that, despite the horrific damage > > >levels. > > > >Generally, I am not one of the people you see thinking this way. > >No. > > > >I wonder if you'll agree with this? > > > >Generally, no. > >I didn't really think you would. > >I think I'll put this bit back: > > >>"Gabriel Kolko -- in this writer's estimation, our most > >>indispensable historian -- argues in a recent piece on the > >>Counterpunch website that because a second Bush term would possibly > >>intensify the international enmity elicited by its bumbling > >>unilateralism, it could be preferable to a Kerry Administration: > >> > >>"'Kerry is neither articulate nor impressive as a candidate or as > >>someone who is likely to formulate an alternative to Bush's foreign > >>and defense policies, which have much more in common with Clinton's > >>than they have differences. To be critical of Bush is scarcely > >>justification for wishful thinking about Kerry. Since 1947, the > >>foreign policies of the Democrats and Republicans have been > >>essentially consensual on crucial issues -- "bipartisan" as both > >>parties phrase it -- but they often utilize quite different > >>rhetoric. > >> > >>"'Critics of the existing foreign or domestic order will not take > >>over Washington this November. As dangerous as it is, Bush's > >>reelection may be a lesser evil because he is much more likely to > >>continue the destruction of the alliance system that is so crucial > >>to American power...' > >> > >>"It is becoming clear that all-too-many Kerry supporters view > >>November's plebiscite as an end in itself. That, if Kerry should > >>prevail, the reaction of a too-large proportion of his voters will > >>be overwhelming relief -- "Whew! That was a close one!" -- > >>followed by a repeat of Clinton-era apathy and apologetics. > >> > >>"Whereas, a Bush victory couldn't but propagate the amazingly > >>diverse and widespread lobbying and protest movement which saw the > >>New York Times declare public political involvement the World's > >>"second superpower." From the unprecedented pre-war protest > >>mobilisations, to the hundred-plus official municipal renunciations > >>of the PATRIOT Act, to the overwhelming response to the FCC's > >>proposed further relaxation of media ownership restrictions, to the > >>virtual implosion of the WTO, to the solidarity actions of > >>"internationals" in Iraq and Palestine; the accomplishments have > >>been many, and the momentum is gathering. > >> > >>"So even though a Kerry administration would no doubt be marginally > >>less nefarious in its designs, in the absence of activist > >>mitigation of these designs, the net effect could well be more > >>disastrous than a second Bush Administration..." > >>-- From: Who's The Lesser Evil? by Eddie Tews (March 24, 2004) > >> > <http://eatthestate.org/08-14/WhosLesserEvil.htm>http://eatthestate.org/08-14/WhosLesserEvil.htm > >> > >>See: > >><http://www.counterpunch.org/kolko03122004.html>http://www.counterpunch. > org/kolko03122004.html > >>Weekend Edition > >>March 12 / 14, 2004 > >>The US Must be Isolated and Constrained > >>The Coming Elections and the Future of American Global Power > >>By GABRIEL KOLKO > >> > >>Also published in the Sydney Morning Herald: > >><http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/15/1079199161939.html>http://www > .smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/15/1079199161939.html > >>The American elections, the future of alliances and the lessons of Spain > >> > >>It's a keyhole view to see the actions of a global superpower in > >>domestic terms, especially as it's the only superpower. The > >>"World's 'second superpower'" that Bush has done so much to > >>activate is also and essentially a global phenomenon. Bravo Spain. > >>"The only thing worth globalizing is dissent." -- Arundhati Roy > >> > >>It's a matter of longstanding and now rapidly growing international > >>resentment that the election, so to speak - appointing, purchasing, > >>what you will - of the government of the world's only superpower is > >>(allegedly) a privilege of people like Tad Johnson (who says he > >>won't vote), let alone Rush Limbaugh and the likes of Pat > >>Robertson, with no say for the billions worldwide who'll suffer the > >>results. If *their* governments want to stay in power, however, > >>they're going to have to choose. The example of Aznar's choice in > >>Spain will lack appeal. Blair, Howard, others... "In a word, > >>[foreign] politicians who place America's imperious demands over > >>national interest have less future than those who are responsive to > >>domestic opinion and needs." (Kolko.) Thus their votes will count, > >>perhaps for more than Tad Johnson's would have, and despite the > >>biting truth in this bit of scrawled wisdom in the men's toilet at > >>a Brighton pub, circa 1980: "If voting could change anything it > >>would be illegal". > >Continue: > > > >So, this time round, vote for Bush. In the longer run, next time > > >round, voting for either faction of the business party in the > > >American polyarchy won't solve anything much, and I think it will > > >come to be seen as offering benefits to an ever-shrinking proportion > > >of the electorate (four more years of Bush will accelerate that > > >process too, both the fact of it and the realisation). A lot of > > >Americans already think that it's a non-choice, it's even been said > > >here quite a few times. So I agree with Tad Johnson, though I'm sure > > >for very different reasons: don't vote. Large numbers already don't, > > >and I don't believe it's because they're too apathetic or dumb - > > >another specious overgeneralisation. I think in a large number of > > >cases they vote by not voting. When a real majority acts by not > > >voting the whole sham has to implode. If the "Second Superpower" has > > >gotten it's act together by then via another four years of Bush, then > > >we might see some real solutions: a US government at last that's > > >responsive to domestic opinion and needs, empowered by active and > > >aware voters who both know about and care about what their government > > >does with their tax dollars AND about about what their government > > >does in other people's countries with their tax dollars. Well, hope > > >springs eternal. LOL! > > > > > >"What's all this political crap got to do with biodiesel?" > > > > > >IMO that's what it will take to have a truly level playing field for > > >new and sustainable energy solutions, and not only a rational energy > > >policy but a rational energy future, for the US, and therefore for > > >the planet. The alternatives... well, there are no alternatives, only > > >disasters. > > > > > >Best > > > > > >Keith > > > >One of the things I will be voting for, when I vote for Kerry, is > >increased discussion of National Energy Policy, beyond the 2 > >paragraphs offered every six months by the present administration > >(outside of yelling simplistically that if only Congress would approve > >their policy, everything would be ok), and the once every six months > >or less offered by previous administrations. > > > >That this increased discussion may sound stupid to some is less > >important to me than that it simply exist. If we are stupid about > >such policy, then that's get some sunlight on that. If anything, > >Kerry sadly had to tone down his interest in better Energy Policy to > >get elected, because he was in severe danger of going from being a > >Senator with a particular focus/interest to a Presidential Candidate > >with a too-narrow focus on one single issue. > > > >One example of a couple of things is that we had the other day's > >increased discussion of CAFE standards and the present mileage > >situation. I would tend to agree, somewhat, that it was not one of > >Kerry's better moments when he accused the President of not twisting > >OPEC's arm enough. And I think he's somewhat locked into seeing CAFE > >legislation as an overall solution, in part somewhat understandably > >because he's been pushing it from that angle for 10 years or so, I > >guess. > >Long enough to learn better. > > >But my perception is that he's at least more attuned to the general > >importance of this issue than most and that he's attuned to it because > >he senses it's of some real urgent importance to make things better, > >and not because faceless men from such as Exxon-Mobil told him to > >shut-up-or-else lose funding and support and go home. > > > >Your Vote-Bush, or Vote-not (I'm not sure which it is you're trying to > >telling me to do) > >It's clear enough: "this time round, vote for Bush. In the longer >run, next time round..." don't bother. But I wasn't trying to tell >you to do/not do anything. Though I think we agree on many things, >you brought up points of disagreement, and I amplified them. Anyway, >it probably won't matter very much. If Bush gets a second term what >will matter is the level of international and worldwide opposition >he'll inevitably raise, including most importantly domestic >opposition in the US, along with the Bush administration's remarkable >capacity for shooting itself in the foot. And its economic ineptness. > > >reminds me somewhat of this cartoon: > > > ><http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20040402/>ht > tp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20040402/ > >cx_db_uc/db20040402 > >That's a bit facile, MM. It goes back to this, from previous: > > >>I'm aware that you disagree with quite a few of my views on > >>American Policies (why do you give it a cap P?), but I think it's a > >>more basic difference than that. We have different points of view, > >>different vantage points, we see different things, according to > >>different sets of priorities. I think your view is primarily > >>American, and I don't have a national view, I'm only interested in > >>the global village, only in the consequences for local communities > >>and for the world community of the doings of the powerful. So I'll > >>almost always oppose the powerful. So vanishingly few of them ever > >>learn that the most effective use of power is to refrain from using > >>it. > >Domestically, maybe what you say makes some sense, though I rather >doubt that too, times have changed. Globally, it'd just be >business-as-usual, which is what's caused all the trouble in the >first place. Domestically, "all the trouble" probably translates to >9/11 and rising gas prices, with the idea beginning to sink in that >maybe Iraq is "trouble". The global view is different. (These are >both Americans though.) > >"September 11th was not an attack on America's values or America's >democracy or America's wealth. It was an attack on American foreign >policy." >- Chalmers Johnson, Fickle, Bitter, and Dangerous ><http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=5255>http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=5255 > >"... as Kerry continuously fails to challenge the US's global Empire >or its domestic fractures back home, he will continue to fail the >American people -- not to mention the rest of the world." >- Josh Frank, You Call This Exciting? ><http://www.counterpunch.com/frank03272004.html>http://www.counterpunch.com/frank03272004.html > >You can draw a rather straight line back from 9/11 to the 1953 CIA >coup against the democratically elected Mossadeq government in Iran >on behalf of British and American oil companies, the installation of >the less than democratic Shah and the US support for him, especially >military support (and for the horrific SAVAK secret police, organized >by US and Israeli intelligence agents), his 1979 collapse and ouster >by Khomeini, less than democratic in the opposite way, and the >consequent US scramble, having lost its main Gulf client state, to >get troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, a creepy, step-by-little-step >process (Diego Garcia, Oman...) that continued through the 80s until >its success in Gulf War 1 (many of us thought at the time that was a >major objective of Gulf War 1, which is otherwise hard to explain). >With heavy US backing for Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war in the >meantime (and lack of backing for the Iraqi opposition after Gulf War >1). The presence of the US troops in Saudi Arabia was a major stated >reason for 9/11. And there they still are. (And just about everywhere >else too.) Iran is still a "problem", along with Syria, with the >addition of whole new potential problems (eg Uzbekistan etc) and the >exacerbation of old ones (North Korea). It's easy to draw a >comparison between Iran 1953 and Haiti now, and Venezuela tomorrow. >Along with huge increases in US-driven global corporate predation, >the massive US military buildup, which should have gone into reverse >at the end of the Cold War, has continued apace, at the expense of >many pressing domestic issues, and even more so at the expense of a >real peace initiative globally. This is "business-as-usual", not much >different with GWB - same tune, but with a really lousy band. How >does John Kerry address all this? He doesn't, or at least he doesn't >propose to change it. Just the band, and the arrangement: strains of >Lawrence Welk at home, same old mayhem everywhere else. Sorry to say >so, but from this vantage point the cartoon you reference seems to >apply more to your solution than to mine. > >Especially lately, Americans seem to think the main role of their >government is to keep them "safe". Neither party will keep them safe, >nor will a super-powerful military. There are a LOT more people in >the world now than there were on September 10 2001 who, as a direct >result of the US response to 9/11 over the last two and half years, >as well as of ongoing US business-as-usual, regard 9/11 not as an >attack but as retaliation, even self-defence. So why would there not >be more such "retaliations", and what's to stop them? Focusing on >what's happened since 9/11, rectifying that, if at all possible - >undoing Bush, if you like - would still leave the true causes of 9/11 >intact: 55 years of blowback from foreign policies which an election >victory for Kerry would only continue. That's not good enough - it >has to stop. Kolko and others are saying that another four years of >Bush could be the best bet for stopping it. I hate to agree, but I do. > >There's a further aspect to this, apart from "business-as-usual". >This is worth a re-read: > ><http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/28999/>http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/28999/ >Two Civilized Men Among the Barbarians > >I'll also add that, speaking very generally, the rest of the world >often has a much clearer grasp of these chains of consequences like >the one I've outlined above (there are many others) than Americans >themselves do, with an encouragingly large and growing number of >exceptions. It's quite mesmerising to hear mystified Americans >saying, "Why do they hate us?" Even more so to realise that's one of >the more thoughtful responses: "They hate us because of our freedom >and democracy". Or just demonise entire cultures at a time: "They're >all the same, they're all terrorists" so let's bomb the place into a >parking lot. > >Terrible things happened in Fallujah last week. Actually some >guerrillas attacked some US mercenaries, which is fair enough, >according to the Geneva Convention anyway. Then the guerrillas >vanished. And then some of the local citizenry mutilated the >mercenaries (something Islam explicity and strongly forbids). Yes, >they hate Americans. They've hated Americans ever since the US bombed >their marketplace in 1991, killing a hundred innocent people. The >American occupation forces have killed quite a lot more civilians >there since then, it happens all the time. Terrible things happen in >Fallujah every week. What will it take to persuade them to stop >hating Americans? This? "We will pacify that city," Brig. Gen. Mark >Kimmitt said, pledging to hunt down those who carried out Wednesday's >killings. Kimmitt promised a response that will be "deliberate" and >"overwhelming." That's how to "fight" terrorism, huh? That'll help >keep Americans "safe". Ask John Kerry that. > >This was a recent message to another list, from a Serb - nothing to >do with George W. Bush: > > >People around me had the feeling - this is what they are deserving,when the > >atack on the WTC happened.But after some time we had remembered that this > >people were just inocent victims ,that had not deserved such a cruel > >punishment.The really responsible people that are guilty,in my opinion,are > >not common americans,but rather they who are sitting in high goverment > >officies and megacorporations.It seems they are also profiting from american > >casulties on 9 .11. meaninig spreading fear and tightening state control. > >Since I am on this list for some years I have "meet" many good and > interesting > >persons,and I can see a big diference between actions of US goverment and > >ordinary americans.Other people here dont.USA had bombed us five years ago > >causing,some say thousand inocent civilian deaths.The strike was called The > >Merciful Angel, this is the vorst cynnism I'v ever heard about. > >I belive the US was involved in many wars since the ww2 causing many,many > >completely inocent victims.And what about the economic wars against many > poor > >nations ,Serbia was under deadly sanctions for some ten years,which had > >making disaster of my life,I can imagine what are the efects of 50 years of > >sanctions against Cuba.How do you feel about that? I belive you hardly > notice > >such events,its just interesting news on the cnn chanel ,but when the > wind of > >war is blowing in your neibourhood you feel it is a world cataclism.I am > >sorry but I belive the most of the poor world had a little pleasure enyoing > >your tragedy. > >He also distinguishes between Americans and Washington, most people >do, even now - but it took him a little time. He's not exaggerating, >his life was ruined, all his plans and dreams smashed, what he was >working for brought to nothing. How many Americans even know what >he's talking about? "Clinton-era apathy and apologetics". Where was >John Kerry when that happened? Opposing it? Standing by? Looking the >other way? Supporting it? > >No need to go on, is there? > > >I've tried not voting and for a variety of reasons, including the > >desire to not have to explain myself over-much to men who stood next > >to soldiers who thought they were dying in part for my right to vote, > >I'm going to be voting. I won't excoriate someone who doesn't, if he > >or she has his reasons that I can respect (though this often turns out > >not to be true), and those reasons may occassionally even be strongly > >patriotic, but I will be voting. > > > >I will also add, as a separate issue, that there is an illegal poll > >tax paid generally in most of the areas that I've lived in, which is > >that by registering to vote one dramatically increases one's Frequency > >and chances of doing Jury Duty. I already pay this tax (once I > >register I'm pretty sure it's too late), and I'm inclined to get what > >I paid for. This poll tax is the one thing that ever got me not to > >vote. > > > >Another thing about not-voting or voting for the wrong-damaging guy is > >that I question that this will work. You're aware of course that this > >has been tried by millions in the US (and I assume elsewhere) for > >decades if not centuries? > >Piecemeal, not concerted, not directed. And the current situation is >unprecedented in many ways. > > >I've often voted for Third-Party Candidates to record my vote near > >someone who stood for one or two things I stood for, and if Kerry > >convinces me he's as horrific as your people say, > >My people? > >You miss the point - well, most of them, IMO, but this is not >anti-Kerry, or not just anti-Kerry, it goes much deeper than that, >it's about a systemic change, well beyond another turn for the other >faction of the US business party. Anyway, do you really wish such a >poison chalice on poor old Kerry? What's he done to you? LOL! >(Sorry!) There's a horrible possibility that if Bush loses the >election he could lose out on paying the consequences too, which >WOULD be a pity. Then I wonder how out-front the Democrats would be >about some of the more unfortunate aspects of their legacy, and how >much covering-up they'd do. The answer: business as usual. > >Anyway, I do tend to think Kolko, Tews and a whole bunch of others, >including me, will probably get to see the proof of the pudding. >Rather drastic I know, too akin to what medics call "heroic surgery" >(when the operation is successful, though the patient dies). But >that's the pass we've come to, like it or not (not). Give Bush more >rope. > >Best > >Keith > > > > >I'll vote > >Third-Party. > > > >MM Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
