National Gangrene

[dr_mabeuse]

Can't you just feel it? We're being ruled by the living dead, a bunch of zombies. Dead from the neck up, and it's spreading.

I turn on the TV and I can't believe it. We're still fighting in Iraq! Isn't that thing over yet? I thought it was over like 6 months ago. Why are we still fighting over there? What's left to fight about, for God's sake? Does anyone still think we're going to win anything?

Alberto Gonzalez! The man's a political hack. A hatchet man. They wouldn't even put up with him here in Chicago, trying to get a comatose Ashcroft to sign off on that wiretapping thing i his hospital bed, firing all the US attorneys, stone-walling congress, everyone disgusted with him. Doesn't he have the decency to step down?

National Gangrene. This slow, creeping deadness...

 

[flavortang]

That's exactly why everyone is fed up with Washington on both sides. People are fed up with Bush, they're fed up with the Democratically-controlled Congress, they're fed up with the system.

That's why I think that politicians that don't sway so far to either the left or right but, rather, stay closer to the center of topics are becoming more popular. People are tired of blind obedience to political parties regardless of how the situation is going. They want progress and just aren't getting it out of either party.

The amount of corruptness oozing out of the political landscape right now is really disconcerting.

 

[rgraham666]

When fish goes rotten, the head stinks first.

Which in our society means we, the voters. Our politicians are not betraying us, they're a reflection of us.

 

[Guest]

When fish goes rotten, the head stinks first.

Which in our society means we, the voters. Our politicians are not betraying us, they're a reflection of us.

Oh.

That's horrid, Rob.

And true, I'm afraid.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I sense it in places that you may not recognize. Today opened with a story about energy investors reconsidering their plans to risk billions increaseing refinery capacity. Refiners see the president calling for a 20 percent reduction in gasoline use, Congress passing laws promising billions for ethanol and other "bio-fuel" subsidies to further enrichen politically powerful argibusiness interests (think Iowa caucuses), and the whole political establishment competing to show how "green" they are.

The article spits out the bile of a rogue's gallery of political opportunists - enviro groups demonizing oil companies for having the gall to drill and refine petroleum; "consumer advocate" scolds demonizing oil companies for benefittiing from high prices resulting from gasoline production bottlenecks caused by the regulations and unchecked NIMBYism; a state AG (formerly "attorney general," now "aspiring governor") snarling that he will sue oil companies to force them to spend billions for additional refinery capacity create a supply "cushion" that will bring down prices. Other political opportunists demonised the oil companies for being big and concentrated; an ethanol rent seeker spokesman scoffed at claims that billions in ethanol subsidies are a valid reason to fear a reduction in petrol demand. (Given the fraud that is ethanol he is probably right about that, but wrong that these subsidies and other legislation have created tremendous uncertainty for potential refinery investors considering putting billions at risk).

There's not enough rationality, honesty or integrity in that whole rotten crew to fill the bladder of a gnat.

Ninety minutes after that story, another was posted: "Refinery Could Face Long Permit Process - Announcing plans for the nation's first new oil refinery since 1976 was the easy part. Obtaining the financing, engineering studies, permits, zoning and community support needed to actually build the Hyperion Energy Center is another story . . ."

My mind drags up that grim old saying, "People get the government they deserve."

So, how does $4 per gallon sound? "Regulate them some more!"
$5? "Sue them!"
$6? "Prosecute them!"

You know where this is heading? Gas lines, shortages, rationing, and recession. Who will you blame for that, Senator?

 

[Pure]

clearly the government should step aside and let Exxon and its associates fix things up.

 

[elsol]

clearly the government should step aside and let Exxon and its associates fix things up.

I thought 'and its Associates' was the Bush and Co's official title.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

clearly the government should step aside and let Exxon and its associates fix things up.

That's right - shut them down and let the government do it. I'm sure the press releases from the Department of Energy explaining the shortfalls in the latest five year plans, the cuts in gas rations and the growing gas lines will be very poignant.

That's essentially what you're doing, except dishonestly and in slow motion, by regulation and (if the Dem candidates get their wishes) taxation.

As I said, though, people get the government they deserve. If the population maintains cognitive dissonance on the whole "green" vs. industrial civilization thing, they can't really blame politicians for turning those contradictions into a contradictory mass of mandates, subsidies, prohibitions, penalties, etc. We hate oil companies but we want cheap gas; we hate ourselves for enjoying our comforts and conveniences so we want to punish those who provide them.

When you're sitting in a gas line for three hours to get your weekly ration, canceling vacations, losing your job in the ensuing recession and watching the value of your IRA and 401K fall through the floor, don't blame Exxon. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[elsol]

When you're sitting in a gas line for three hours to get your weekly ration, canceling vacations, losing your job in the ensuing recession and watching the value of your IRA and 401K fall through the floor, don't blame Exxon. Be careful what you wish for.

Remember that thread when you took the left over your knee about their hyperbole making it difficult to take their arguments seriously...

Yeah... kinda hard to take you seriously whenever you're responding to Pure, Rox.

 

[emap]

Oh no no, Bush got elected because he was a yes man to anybody who would give him money. You could tell just by listening to him for 2 minutes at any point in his 'speeches.' What he and the news called them, personally i think anytime he gets on the dais you should newspaper around and call him a bad puppy for making that mess in the house.

I mean good greif the only other president I can think of as inept and so far out of his league it's pathetic is Taft. Sad part, Bush makes Taft look like a damn good president. Now is that pathetic or what?

We are still in Iraq because since we should not have gone there in the first place the terrorist groups are having a feild day and recruiting men like crazy there, which means it is impossible for the elected government of Iraq to get set up without our troops. Course our troops being there means the terrorists are still getting more men and still killing people in Iraq which makes it even harder to get the government set up with an adequate means of defense and policing.

At this point we have two choices, abandon Iraq and let the terrorists take it over which they would do at this point and either put a worse man than Hussein in office, or we stay there and put trillions upon trillions of dollars worth of equipment and men into that country for the next 20-40 years.

Hell I got a better question, do we even have troops looking for Bin Laden still or was he just the excuse to get troops mobilized then deployed to Iraq? I mean besides sitting in that grade school class until the towers collapsed on September 11th in shock I guess is his excuse for that, are we doing anything about it?

It's great we are honoring another country and not doing a full scale invasion, but ummm WHY? I mean we invaded Iraq, why on earth did we not just send all the troops that ended up in Iraq into Afkhanistan and find this Bin laden guy, oh and in the meantime actually I don't know destroy his group.

See this is actually why the US is such a big target for terrorists, we buy everything we stick our nose into their country and dictate no don't do that or yes do this, but we also DON'T hit them back. Yeah they killed what one cave of them? They lose a third of the people killed in the towers, and we are getting them back??? How exactly is that sending a message of don't fuck with us?

At this point hell I would not be surprised if someone came out with evidence that Bush planned the attack on the towers. I do beleive there is a group saying that isn't there?

 

[Pure]

national gangrene?

National Gangrene

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't you just feel it? We're being ruled by the living dead, a bunch of zombies. Dead from the neck up, and it's spreading.

I turn on the TV and I can't believe it. We're still fighting in Iraq! Isn't that thing over yet? I thought it was over like 6 months ago. Why are we still fighting over there? What's left to fight about, for God's sake? Does anyone still think we're going to win anything?

Alberto Gonzalez! The man's a political hack. A hatchet man. They wouldn't even put up with him here in Chicago, trying to get a comatose Ashcroft to sign off on that wiretapping thing i his hospital bed, firing all the US attorneys, stone-walling congress, everyone disgusted with him. Doesn't he have the decency to step down?

National Gangrene. This slow, creeping deadness...

nicely said, mab. the government does seem entirely resistant to democratic imput, and obviously so.

i'd like to offer another perspective, however.

while it's true congress is mostly impotent, i think one might say that key decisions are made elsewhere, e.g. with Cheney and the fellows whose visits he does not want logged. Gonzales, and the senators pursuing him are the monkeys in the sideshow.

as 'anti war' persons, clearly Iraq is a big issue, reminiscent of Vietnam.
BUT arguably our perspective is distorted. A 50-year plan is now being mooted within a Korean analogy. The US needs a 'base' in the middle east, and some control over a good chunk of the oil there. Isn't it succeeding? Do you think the deaths of a couple W Va men-- and occasionally a woman-- every week is really a big deal?

you will remind me that a billion a week, roughly, is being spent. but that billion does not come from Halliburton and Exxon, by and large.
indeed, a chunk of it GOES to them, i.e. is a GAIN for them. simply put, the 'losers' are not the same folks as the gainers. *the gainers are doing just find, thank you.* (see the business stories, below)

so my suggestion is besides your view, consider that *those who matter* want to get done, not just what you'd like, or Joe Public, or Billy Joe.

we have a kind of corporate state, energized partly from a religious base. the offices created by the constitution, outside the high executive persons, simply matter very little. the job that Cheney's favorite corporations want is getting done; things are going rather well (does Bill Utt, in the second article, seem unhappy, to you):

Halliburton first quarter profit rises

April 26, 2007


NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil services company Halliburton Co. said on Thursday its first-quarter profit rose as high energy prices boosted demand for its products, especially in international markets.



Halliburton reported a 2007 first-quarter net profit of $552 million, or 54 cents a diluted share, compared with $488 million, or 46 cents a diluted share in the same quarter a year earlier.

Net income from continuing operations rose to 52 cents per share from 42 cents per share a year ago, matching analysts' forecast of 52 cents a share, according to Reuters Estimates.

Revenue in the quarter rose to $3.4 billion

===

{Halliburton has spun off the entity, KBR, for much of its pentagon- related activity}

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=44760

KBR's Q1 Profit Edges Upward


Friday, May 04, 2007


KBR on Friday announced that income from continuing operations was $30 million, or $0.18 per diluted share, compared to income from continuing operations of $20 million, or $0.15 per diluted share, in the first quarter of 2006.

Net income was $28 million, or $0.17 per diluted share, in the first quarter of 2007, which included a loss from discontinued operations of $2 million, or $0.01 per diluted share, related to settlement of matters from the second quarter 2006 sale of Production Services Group.

This compares to net income for the first quarter of 2006 of $26 million, or $0.19 per diluted share, which included income from discontinued operations of $6 million, or $0.04 per diluted share, related to the Production Services Group.

Consolidated revenue in the first quarter of 2007 was $2.3 billion and slightly higher than consolidated revenues of $2.2 billion in the first quarter of 2006.

Consolidated operating income was $62 million in the first quarter of 2007 compared to $60 million in the first quarter of 2006, a 3% increase. Operating income in the first quarter of 2007 included a $20 million charge related to the Brown & Root-Condor Spa (BRC) joint venture in Algeria, of which $18 million was an impairment on KBR's net investment of this joint venture. Operating income in the first quarter of 2006 included a $26 million impairment charge on the Alice Springs-Darwin railroad project.

"With the separation from Halliburton now complete, I look forward to KBR's future with great optimism as KBR is now able to devote its full focus toward delivering the highest quality engineering, construction, and services projects to our industrial, governmental, and military customers. I am particularly excited with our prospects in all our businesses as we drive towards improvement in our existing product and service offerings as well as seek to expand our legacy logistics, industrial services, domestic construction, and off-shore business pursuits," said Bill Utt, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of KBR.

 

[amicus]

Dear, dear Roxanne....thank you.

I have twice been back to the thread started by Dr. Mab, thinking each time, sighs, why even try to respond to the left group grope anymore?

Then of course your lovely voice of reason, rationality and truth in the midst of chaos.

So, from a distance, I extend a warm appreciative hug, just for you.



amicusveritas

 

[Huckleman2000]

That's exactly why everyone is fed up with Washington on both sides. People are fed up with Bush, they're fed up with the Democratically-controlled Congress, they're fed up with the system.

That's why I think that politicians that don't sway so far to either the left or right but, rather, stay closer to the center of topics are becoming more popular. People are tired of blind obedience to political parties regardless of how the situation is going. They want progress and just aren't getting it out of either party.

The amount of corruptness oozing out of the political landscape right now is really disconcerting.

While Congress has very low ratings lately, they are low because people aren't satisfied with the pace of Congress' repudiation of BushCo.

Don't confuse BushCo's low ratings with Congress's, and conclude that there's a pox on all their houses.

The main reason Congress has low ratings is that it's not undoing BushCo policies fast enough.

 

[flavortang]

While Congress has very low ratings lately, they are low because people aren't satisfied with the pace of Congress' repudiation of BushCo.

Don't confuse BushCo's low ratings with Congress's, and conclude that there's a pox on all their houses.

The main reason Congress has low ratings is that it's not undoing BushCo policies fast enough.

I agree with that, BUT Congress still has those low ratings, regardless of the reason.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I agree with that, BUT Congress still has those low ratings, regardless of the reason.

But the reason is that people REALLY can't stand Bush.

If one would look at the low ratings of both BushCo and the Congress, one might conclude that some compromise between the two would be appealing. That would be a misinterpretation.

If Congress stood more in opposition to BushCo, its ratings would go up.

 

[Pure]

R:When you're sitting in a gas line for three hours to get your weekly ration, canceling vacations, losing your job in the ensuing recession [etc. etc.]

P: will someone tell me, or ms thespian, why it is that millions of Americans needing electric or hybrid (biofuel) cars, homes that conserve heat, and energy-efficient appliances is going spell the death of capitalism and freedom, or, equivalently for ms t., the death of western civilization?

===

Note to Huck: Congress was called the 'withered branch' decades ago. It is simply NOT the place that much happens. It compliance simply reached new and outrageous heights with GWB.

 

[Huckleman2000]

R:When you're sitting in a gas line for three hours to get your weekly ration, canceling vacations, losing your job in the ensuing recession [etc. etc.]

P: will someone tell me, or ms thespian, why it is that millions of Americans needing electric or hybrid (biofuel) cars, homes that conserve heat, and energy-efficient appliances is going spell the death of capitalism and freedom, or, equivalently for ms t., the death of western civilization?

Exactly.
The way things are going, the major beneficiaries of the coming boom in alternative and high-efficiency energy technologies will be the Chinese, due to their government-directed R&D.

The Invisible Hand can't hold a candle to the Central Planning Authority Charged With Powering Two Billion People With Penalty of Death. Not that I'm advocating for Totalitarianism, but you have to be aware of what the competition is doing, at least.

 

[Pure]

hence i'm sure that capitalist exemplars, such as Walmart and Home Depot, purveyors for the Chinese, are going to do just fine.

around here, they're giving away those fluorescent thingies to replace incadescent bulbs; which is already underway in Australia. who'd have thought the Aussies would be the first to fall of the Western civilized nations. damn you Rachel Carlson.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Remember that thread when you took the left over your knee about their hyperbole making it difficult to take their arguments seriously...

Yeah... kinda hard to take you seriously whenever you're responding to Pure, Rox.

I don't know why you find the thought of gasoline shortages so hard to believe, el. Refinery capacity is a genuine and growing bottleneck in our economy, caused until now exclusively by overregulation and NIMBYism, and now exacerbated by other bad public policy choices, per the news item I described. Very little has to go wrong right now to cause a genuine supply crunch that would drive gas up another dollar or two, and given the relative elaticity of demand in the short run, cause genuine shortages. You don't think that would have serious repercussions for the broader economy? I described in measured and reasonable terms (if slightly colorful language, per my style) the cognitive dissonance of the population on these matters, and how that plays out in contradictory and damaging public policy. These things are real - why do you imagine they have no consequences in the real world?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

To those who mentioned more fuel efficient cars, homes and other products, sure, who's not for that? Given current energy prices those things will happen without any help from you and Big Mother, but they happen gradually - not everyone can afford to junk the 1998 Blazer and buy a Pious overnight.

I've said elsewhere that the West could reduce it's energy consumption by half over time with no diminution of our quality of life and standard of living. What few people appreciate is the magnitude of energy that even half would represent, however. Also, I'm kind of hoping to see more Indians, Chinese and everyone else have the opportunity to enjoy the comforts and conveniences that we do. If they do so with even a quarter of the energy we currently use, that still represents a massive net increase in demand.

Yes, the oil will become uneconomical over the next century (not "run out") as the easier to lift and process stuff is used up. That's OK - in that timeframe we can convert to an all-electric economy that supplies all the comforts and conveniences we currently enjoy, and to every person on the planet. But - even at half or a quarter our current consumption rates, the magnitudes of energy required to do that dwarf what solar, wind, biofuel etc. could ever conceivably supply. Not to mention the fact that the first two of those require back-up systems, which makes them frivolous luxuries (and currently the third is a corrupt politicians and rent-seeking agribiz scam).

Nuclear (and possibly geothermal) is the only energy source that can provide the magnitudes needed by industrial civilization on a sustainable basis for thousands of years. We are not going to decide to all live like the Amish, so get used to it, and stop hating yourselves over it. You have a right to live and enjoy the comforts and conveniences our civilization has allotted us.

 

[Pure]

To those who mentioned more fuel efficient cars, homes and other products, sure, who's not for that? Given current energy prices those things will happen without any help from you and Big Mother, but they happen gradually

actually, no, not without 'help' (government direction, incentives, disincentives). i think the case of automobiles clearly shows that legislative pressure is what leads to fuel efficiency improvements for cars. (i'm open to hearing examples to the contrary, i.e, industry driven fuel efficiencies.) the "limited government" setup simply doesn't lead to fuel efficiency. it's rather simple: the fuel efficient car might cost $500 more; given choice, the manufacturer simply won't do it.

===
as to the nuclear fix beloved of the right and the French, it's still the 'dig it out and consume it' mentality, as with oil. i've seen no evidence that the energy gains won't be offset by energy-intensive depoiliation of the uranium-ore-rich areas. common sense, to me, says, "renewable" (cellulose derived biofuel) or "infinite source" (e.g like sunlight) are the ways to go. "mine it, sell it, take your money and run" is not a recipe for a flourishing environment.

 

[BlackShanglan]

To those who mentioned more fuel efficient cars, homes and other products, sure, who's not for that? Given current energy prices those things will happen without any help from you and Big Mother, but they happen gradually

actually, no, not without 'help' (government direction, incentives, disincentives). i think the case of automobiles clearly shows that legislative pressure is what leads to fuel efficiency improvements for cars. (i'm open to hearing examples to the contrary, i.e, industry driven fuel efficiencies.) the "limited government" setup simply doesn't lead to fuel efficiency. it's rather simple: the fuel efficient car might cost $500 more; given choice, the manufacturer simply won't do it.

That reminds me of something I learned the other night when watching a forensics television show. They were discussing a crime that took place in Australia, and mentioned a simple and telling fact. At the time that the crime took place, cars in the United States had safety glass, and cars in Australia did not. The technology was proven, the manufacturing process was understood, and the benefit to the driver and passengers was the same. In fact, there was only one real difference. In the United Sates, it was required by law. And so it was there.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

indeed, it would be *irrational* for the producer for the general public--not the rich-- to spend hundreds for ANY given safety feature, given the public unawareness of the issues*. reduction of profit is the immediate message to the system: "why are you increasing production costs rather than cutting them?"

it would be like a hammer maker deciding to chromium plate the usual, steel hammerhead, and thus have a product costing $60 instead of $30.
("it won't rust if you leave it out in the rain!"). Reply (see below): "So I'll be extra careful not to leave it out when it might rain."
----

*or belief that "there's only one chance in a thousand i'll need this feature" or belief that "i'll drive carefully and reduce the risk much more without laying out cash for this supposed safety improvement."

 

[S-Des]

[actually, no, not without 'help' (government direction, incentives, disincentives). i think the case of automobiles clearly shows that legislative pressure is what leads to fuel efficiency improvements for cars. (i'm open to hearing examples to the contrary, i.e, industry driven fuel efficiencies.) the "limited government" setup simply doesn't lead to fuel efficiency. it's rather simple: the fuel efficient car might cost $500 more; given choice, the manufacturer simply won't do it.

That is simply nonsensical. Car manufacturers are driven by profit. Profit is unatainable without sales. The consumer drives the market, not the other way around. I bought a Corolla because it was the best combination of fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. The car manufacturer saving $500 by producing a vehicle with poorer fuel efficiency just means that people looking for gas mileage will look somewhere else. Vehicles that sell well get produced in larger quantities. It really isn't a difficult concept.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

It just seems to be that it's time for the name-calling and the ideology to stop and the problem-solving to start. What's wrong with us us that we're locked in this war of ideolgical purity and so nothing's getting the fuck done. It's "liberals this" and "conservatives that" and it's stupid. There are some things that government does better and some things that the private sector does better and you use whichever tool gets the job done. I don't know when we became such doctrinaire purists. I guess it was back in the 80's and 90's when things were going well enough that we had the luxury of indulging in such nonsense.

But we don't have that luxury anymore. Things are seriously wrong and need to be fixed. We got to the mess we're in today because of ideological purity and zealotry, and I'm hoping that whoever can first build a coalition free of this ideological acrimony will win the future and put an end to it, and it's really about time. We've really had enough of the politics of hatred. It's killing us.