Iran
Many, many headlines, lots of loose talk, some of it in somber, measured tones, some of it near hysteria regarding plans to attack Iran, or the notion that war with that country is coming.
Bullshit.
Don't get me wrong, there may actually be a plan in place to expand the conflict in the mideast to that country, (I don't think so, but what do I know?), but that is not what all this noise is about.
The whole tone of the 'Iran debate' has a ring of phoniness to it. It might be out there to make Georgie look good when he refrains from attacking that country. It may be out there to inflate the appearance of influence on the part of certain anti-George factions. But it simply doesn't ring true to me.
As far as Iran goes, it is high on the list of my least favorite countries for lots of reasons, but one should never underestimate them by lumping them in with your basic, backwards culture that seeks only to survive and get enough dates and yogurt to get by on this week. that country intends to be the premier economic force in the world, and following that comes political and social influence.
The real danger to Iran comes not from the coalition of the willing, but from the coalition of the we-want-your-oil. That commodity is the key to its future, not enriched uranium or radical Islam. The time to address this economic superiority was 40 years ago, but it is not too late.
In the coming election cycle, ask specific questions about national energy policy. Get educated on the subject. You decide what works the best.
Bullshit.
Don't get me wrong, there may actually be a plan in place to expand the conflict in the mideast to that country, (I don't think so, but what do I know?), but that is not what all this noise is about.
The whole tone of the 'Iran debate' has a ring of phoniness to it. It might be out there to make Georgie look good when he refrains from attacking that country. It may be out there to inflate the appearance of influence on the part of certain anti-George factions. But it simply doesn't ring true to me.
As far as Iran goes, it is high on the list of my least favorite countries for lots of reasons, but one should never underestimate them by lumping them in with your basic, backwards culture that seeks only to survive and get enough dates and yogurt to get by on this week. that country intends to be the premier economic force in the world, and following that comes political and social influence.
The real danger to Iran comes not from the coalition of the willing, but from the coalition of the we-want-your-oil. That commodity is the key to its future, not enriched uranium or radical Islam. The time to address this economic superiority was 40 years ago, but it is not too late.
In the coming election cycle, ask specific questions about national energy policy. Get educated on the subject. You decide what works the best.
posted by eccentric recluse at 7:29 AM
15 Comments:
Seems to me that any politician's energy policies are about the same as the next, in that they all eventually end up doing whatever the oil and car companies want, no matter what they promised.
People or companies or any entity with enough money(power) have always been able to influence public policy. That's how it is; how it works. Right or wrong, there's no right or left; conservative or liberal, to it.
As for car and oil companies ? Let's put aside for second the fact that we all get cheap oil and a great selection of great cars out of it... Who are these companies ? From the top boss, down trough the ranks; middle management; right down to the union guy building the car.. or the gas station owner.. and let's throw in all the stock-holders too ?
You guessed it.. it's us.. Americans..
Ya can't cater to 100% of the population, 100% of the time and when there's a point of contention.. who should public policy look out for ? The groups of people who keep us in wheels, fuel, computers and build big stores where we can walk in any time and have our choice of daily needs filled instantly, inexpensively ?
It's true that oil and car companies fill a need, but that's only because we don't have a decent alternative to the products they sell. For example, if clothing manufacturers only made ugly, uncomfortable clothes, we would still have to buy it because there would be no alternative. Same with gas-guzzling cars. All the alternatives we've been offered (alcohol, solar etc.) have considerable inadequacies, whether it be price, power, speed, appearance, length of time they run without being serviced, etc. I find it hard to believe that's the best they can do. And I find it hard to believe legislators couldn't give auto companies incentives to try harder. As for the electricity for our buildings, why is there so pitifully little solar and wind energy in use? That could take a big load off the oil and coal consumption without resorting to nuclear power.
Do you remember Jimmy Carter being laughed at when, years ago, he called our energy policies nearing a crisis? And now tune in to tv today and see big ole GM as they place ads for Hummers.
Americans will not give up their soft cushy lifestyles without a fight. Even if that means thousands of dead and displaced muslums.
But since their president declared this GWOT not worthy of our sacrifice. Let's all go shoppin....
Disgusting, JB
... and when there's a point of contention.. who should public policy look out for ? The groups of people who keep us in wheels, fuel, computers and...
I disagree with that. The interest that government must come down on the side of is not those who make our lives cheap and easy. I know where that comes from, but it is simply wrong. The role of government is to protect the interests of the individual, the role of commerce is to fill or cater to the needs of the individual, not vice versa. The constitution guarantees no rights or prerogatives for business, its preamble does not say "we the Board of Directors...".
To borrow and slightly rework a timeworn phrase, what is good for the citizen is good for business.
E_R
"To borrow and slightly rework a timeworn phrase, what is good for the citizen is good for business"
Absolutely ! But where you're wrong, is what the government's responsibilities are. It's not up to them to look out for us.. it's up to US to look out for us. This reflex that the feds gotta take care of us is what causes the problems. And don't lose sight that the big corps are owned by and employ a goodly share of us on top of making the whole thing go (including funding the feds).
It's much more important for the lawmakers to keep the system working first(that's what really takes care of us). How fair it all is can be determined by how we spend and vote.
Quit looking to a government lead, guide and help you.. Do that yourself.
not to be argumentative, but I am not looking for the government to look out for me, I am looking for the government to stop giving advantage to business, (especially the larger, well-heeled ones), over my interests.
E_R
I certainly don't want the government trying to take care of me or lead me like some Orwellian parental figure. My elected officials are supposed to represent me, but once elected they don't seem to care much what the majority wants. Lately it seems I am trying to look out for myself and my country despite my elected representatives.
I certainly don't want the government trying to take care of me or lead me like some Orwellian parental figure. My elected officials are supposed to represent me, but once elected they don't seem to care much what the majority wants. Lately it seems I am trying to look out for myself and my country despite my elected representatives.
I certainly don't want the government trying to lead me like some Orwellian parental figure. My elected officials are supposed to represent me, but once elected they don't seem to care much what the majority wants. Lately it seems I am trying to look out for myself and my country despite my elected "representatives."
As for the thousands of dead Arabs - true and sad. Many thousands. There are also over 3000 American deaths and counting due to the war in Iraq.
I'll put my money on Iran getting bombed before Bush leaves office.
Oops, sorry about that, ER!
Yeah, what Woozie said.
"not to be argumentative, but I am not looking for the government to look out for me, I am looking for the government to stop giving advantage to business, (especially the larger, well-heeled ones), over my interests."
------------------------
OK.. humor me. Give me an example, even a vague one, of the government giving the advantage to a corporation's interest over your individual interest. It wont take much effort for me to point out that some other individual's interest was either looked to, or overlooked at the same time. You can't cater to and please every single citizen.. and we don't even want a government to look at it (or to to be looked to) that way. A government's job is to look at the big picture and make sure things work. It's not going to do your co-citizen a bit of good if his personal interest is served contrary to yours; and vice-versa. It cannot be about individuals. There are nearly 300,000,000 of us.
If, at times, the corporation or rich guy gets a little more slack from the government .. that beats the alternative.
In the imortal words of my father.. "Try getting a job from a poor person".. Or for that matter; a product, service or big pile of collected tax revenue.
OK.. humor me. Give me an example, even a vague one, of the government giving the advantage to a corporation's interest over your individual interest.
There are many, that range from taxation policies that tax my income differently than the way the business is taxed, to regulatory, (make that deregulatory) policies, that enable the rich (as you said, money = power), to be protected from any incursion by those who are subject to that power. One example is the recent 'reform' of tort law regarding medical malpractice and claims against insurance companies. Are some of these incidents extravegant? You betcha! There may be reasons for that that are not apparent on first glance. But to shield any group or class of individuals or business from the normal workings of the court system is to give a HUGE advantage to them, at the expense of the individual. This applies not just to medical suits, but to many other insurance related issues. I realize that there are some instances where awards are outrageous, and make headlines, but there are just as many, or more, where the individual is screwed for technical or procedural reasons.
I am not a fan of the way things tend to go in courts, but it was always intended to be a level playing field, with questions adjudicated by an impartial judge and sometimes jury. That system can be tweaked, to better serve the community, but a blanket 'get-out-of-jail free' pass? C'mon.
Lets move on.
Thanks for all the comments.
Post a Comment
<< Home