Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
- As Predicted, Austerity Policies Send US Economy Downward
- It’s All About Israel
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
- As Hurricane Victims Freeze, Billionaire Mayor Gives Away $1 Billion to Wealthy Med School
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Conservative Call to War Against Oil
For people who live along the Gulf Coast, it's a matter of life or death. For the rest of us -- c'mon now, let's be honest -- the oil spewing from the Gulf floor and the effort to control it is mostly a television show. American politics, too, is mostly a television show. Last night Barack Obama tried to combine the two and turn it into a gripping, compelling drama. Whether he succeeded is a matter of opinion. When we watch TV we all get to be critics and make up our own minds.
I hope he succeeded, because his speech, like any TV show, had one goal: to raise the ratings, in order to sell more of the advertiser's product. And the product Obama was selling is immensely important: an America that runs on renewable energy instead of oil.
The star of the show made it sound like he really cares about the product. His delivery was surprisingly flat, almost canned, until he started talking about the long-term solution -- new energy technologies that will wean us from our oil addiction. Then he seemed to come alive.
But is that dramatic emotion enough to sell the product to the American people, to get them to pay the up front costs (which as he acknowledged are going to be expensive), buck the big oil lobby, and accept the federal government as an agent of drastic change in our way of life?
Franklin D. Roosevelt faced the same kind of challenge twice as president, first when he promoted the New Deal and then when he persuaded the nation to mobilize against Germany and Japan. Both times, he was as successful as any president might hope to be. Obama seems to have learned the two key lessons Roosevelt could teach him. First, politics is always a theatrical art. Second, politics is most dramatic when a nation goes to war.
FDR showed the power of politics as theater when he created the fireside chat to promote the New Deal. And he often spoke of the New Deal as a war against the Great Depression. But his flair for the theatrical was perfected during World War II. "In human affairs, the public must be offered a drama," he told Free French leader Charles De Gaulle as he announced that he'd accept nothing short of "unconditional surrender."
Army chief of staff General George C. Marshall said he learned from the president that "the leader in a democracy has to keep the people entertained." He made that comment looking back on his bitter quarrel with FDR about strategy for the war in Europe. In 1942, Marshall wanted to gather all his forces for a direct assault on the continent. FDR overruled him, putting off the assault for two years while first diverting troops to North Africa, where they could win quick victories that would boost morale and keep the voters happy at home.
Since Obama says he's read a lot about FDR, it is probably no coincidence that his Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil disaster relied so heavily on the language of war. He called it "the battle we're waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens," warned that "we will be fighting for months and even years," but promised that "we will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long as it takes." "Tonight I'd like to lay out for you what our battle plan is going forward," including "the deployment of over 17,000 National Guard members along the coast."
Obama promised quick wins in the short term along with total victory in the long run over both the oil and the corporation responsible for spilling it. And now, unlike World War II, hardly any of us have to go out to fight the actual battle. Nearly all of us can just sit back and watch. That, as George Marshall said, is entertainment.
Yet the script Franklin Roosevelt wrote to sell World War II to the American people was more complicated than that. And its complexity was also reflected in Obama's speech. Plenty of Americans were reluctant to go to war, just as plenty are now reluctant to switch from oil to renewable energy.
FDR's dramatic ploy was to persuade the public that economic globalization combined with new technology to create a new kind of world. Now unexpected threats might arise anywhere to place every American home in danger. The U.S. would have to be permanently prepared with what he called "total defense." Most Americans took that lesson to heart, even after the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan. They accepted the idea that the nation would be a full-time theater of war, either hot or cold. The show would go on, indefinitely.
As Michael Sherry has shown in his masterful work, In the Shadow of War, since FDR's days war has been the model for all political change in the U.S. Whether fighting communists, terrorists, drugs, poverty, cancer, or whatever, Americans have been willing to pull together for political aims only when they were persuaded that they faced a dreaded enemy.
Obama and his speechwriters know that perfectly well. So they promoted new energy technology in a martial spirit, with a familiar call to overcome an enemy threat: "As we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude. We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America's innovation and seize control of our own destiny."
They even had the president evoke the parallel with FDR's World War II rhetoric quite explicitly: "The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet. You know, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II."
There is another way to talk about major policy changes like the shift to renewable energy sources -- not as a defense against a frightening impending threat, but as a collective expression of hope for and commitment to a better future for all. Obama did sound that note too: "Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us."
But like all presidents since FDR, he made that a minor note. The main theme was the need to protect ourselves from the menacing cloud. So he concluded his speech with words that could easily inspire more uncertainty and fear than hope: "The oil spill is not the last crisis America will face. This nation has known hard times before and we will surely know them again. What sees us through -- what has always seen us through -- is our strength, our resilience, and our unyielding faith that something better awaits us if we summon the courage to reach for it. . We pray that a hand may guide us through the storm towards a brighter day."
Perhaps Obama thought he was issuing a call to collective effort for the common good. But most Americans would hear it as a warning to defend ourselves more militantly against new dangers to come. They would focus more on the storm than the brighter day.
The difference is crucial. People who are defending themselves from a storm are cautious and wary of making any major changes. They will change only as much as is needed to keep themselves safe. And their emphasis is on safety of self, along with one's own home, family, and small circle of friends. In short, they are conservative.
So they are not likely to support the kind of sweeping progressive legislation we need to make the change Obama described, from oil addiction to renewable energy sources. They are more likely to heed the call of the Republicans come election day, to protect themselves from the latest menace: not the oil, and certainly not the corporations that drill for it, but "big government" itself.
To fend off that attack, Obama's advisors probably tell him, he has to pass some legislation, any legislation, and help Democrats win the next election. So he must entertain a public trained since FDR's day to respond only to frightening warnings and dramatic calls to fend off dire threats. He must raise his ratings in an audience that is inherently conservative. He cannot take the risk of emphasizing a hopeful, genuinely progressive message. And he must depict the oil, more than BP or the culture of corporate capitalism, as the enemy.
In the short run, they are probably right. And their job is to win in the short run.
If we are going to win in the long run and make the great transformation we need in energy technology, grassroots progressives must promote a new kind of language and evoke a new spirit -- one willing to take risks and to care for the common good, the well-being of everyone in the nation (and indeed in the world) rather than just one's own small, profitable circle. In the current political climate, we cannot rely on the president or any political leader to do that for us. It's up to us.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
53 Comments so far
Show AllListening to talk shows I can affirm the notion that the public is inherently conservative. They want the age of oil to go on forever. They want it so much that they refuse to believe climate change is real, that oil is a limited resource, that we don't have enough fossil fuels within our national boundaries to keep us going forever. It's easy to attribute this perception to ignorance but I think the problem is deeper still. Anxiety about the future is high because there is no credible projection to them of a time where life can be better not worse with renewable energy resources. Better to stick with what we do know. Better to reject an uncertain future. "What do we do when the sun does't shine or the wind doesn't blow?" they say dismissively as though anyone who projects a renewable energy future is naive or even ridiculous. And the conservatives are again telling us that we're going to kill granny if we go down that path because the move to alternative energy will drive prices so high she won't be able to afford air conditioning. Either Obama will be able to project a believable energy future without oil or fear of our future without oil will drive us to reject any change at all. Obama, the man of hope was not the man with a plan for a better energy future last night. He was the man who told us to hang on and pray. Faith in divine intervention does not inspire me--it fills me with fear. Maybe a tottering, confused, demented and helpless "granny" is a good metaphor for this nation's state of mind and Obama is not doing much to show us how we can recover our senses. Maybe the best we can only hope that granny tips over soon.
What renewable energy? So far he's only offered "clean coal" -- oops, not renewable and then mining disaster. How about safe nukes -- oops, not renewable, infinite ongoing containment costs for thousands of years, long after the short burst of electrical charge that was the only benefit. Apart from that he told us that deep sea drilling was safe only a few months ago.
The only renewable energy source in the long run is bio-energy and the only land plant useful for that purpose is cannabis. It's resin plus bio-mass ratio in relation to acreage and water puts it beyond the league of any competitors. Yet Obama refuses to budge in the war on the public for this only sane alternative.
This was Obama's "malaise" speech, deflecting his failures onto the public instead of leading to the only possible future, lest conservatives draw their guns and prove how far beyond the fringe they have gone (which, in fact, if one reads history is where they have always been).
The nuclear power industry will gain as much as the attorneys from the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
Although oil is no longer a significant competitor with nuclear for power production, the nuclear industry has accelerated its already copious propaganda campaign to convince Americans that clean, safe, "carbon-free" nuclear power is the "alternative" energy of choice. Since most Americans don't want to be bothered with the details or connecting the dots, they are jumping on the nuclear bandwagon.
When you consider the fossil fuel burned in mining and processing uranium, building and operating vitrification plants for nuclear waste, etc., you realize that nuclear power is nowhere near "carbon-free". As a result of the nuclear industry's propaganda campaign and the lack of visible moving parts or black smoke at nuclear plants, new nuclear power plants are within most Americans' comfort zone.
Burning any form of carbon, any plant, releases CO2 into the air. Therefore cannabis is an unacceptable alternative to coal and oil when it comes to carbon reduction, global warming and ocean acidification.
Plants are not the only renewable energy source. Nuclear is not a safe and clean alternative either. But there are wind and solar. We cannot say this enough to counter the disinformation and big lies of those who currently monopolize energy production.
Stocks for solar panel producers in Germany went way up today as a result of some things Obama said. Germany is already producing solar panels, for heaven sake. They are being sold and deployed all over, even in small villages that had no electricity before. Europe has plenty of windmills and the numbers are increasing all the time. Why not us??
This is a moment in which the oil industry is at a low point of credibility. We must seize this moment to push for producing solar panels and windmills here, preferably using publicly owned and operated facilities. We need the jobs. It would be a new TVA. Universities would benefit with R & D money for something other than developing better ways to manipulate and kill people. We need to produce something beside war and shady financial instruments.
(Cannabis is better used to chill out than to fight global warming.)
Joe
Cannabis isn't like most biofuels. There is proof that putting hemp in place of petroleum would effectively cut down on global warming big time.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/904329
/legalizing_industrial_hemp_might_solve_pg3.html?cat=47
Hemp could be used in place of coal to make even better solar panels.
I looked at the article. It says that "cannabis is at least four and possibly many more times richer in sustainable, renewable biomass/cellulose potential than its nearest rivals on the planet"
Cellulose is the main form of structural carbon found in plants and trees, whether cannabis or hemp or cornstalks or oak trees or whatever. Cellulose is a long chain of attached (C5 H10 O5) units. To burn it (oxidize it) would produce 5 CO2 plus 5 water molecules for each unit. There is no way to burn carbon based fuels without releasing CO2. That is what "burn" means chemically.
I think that anyone who is interested in policy matters should take some courses in chemistry, biology, organic chemistry and biochemistry. Bundled in with the related issues of peace, democracy and economic equality, the environment is one of the critical overriding issues for the world for the foreseeable future. It may be the most pivotal. A basic grasp of these sciences would avoid a lot of confusion, diversion and magical thinking in progressive circles.
If you like cannabis, try to legalize it. But do not pose it as a clean fuel source that can replace oil.
Joe
True, even hemp can release carbon but I meant to put it as one of the less harmful biofuel sources. It is supposed to release far less carbon compared to corn and most biofuel sources. I would agree that rapeseed oil or algae would be better yet also renewable. Hemp can be used for clothing, plastics, building material including paint, and most of the items manufactured with petroleum. If you are interested in reducing carbon footprints, here's a better biofuel source that's carbon neutral unlike the rest, algal oil.
http://www.algaeindustrymagazine.com
/part-one-the-tiny-plant-that-saved-our-planet/
http://futurity.org/earth-environment
/pressure-cook-algae-to-make-better-biofuel/
Can you hear my frustration? Any biofuel works by providing carbon to be burned. Burning any source of carbon releases CO2 into the air. Period. End of story. That adds to the CO2 in the air and to the acidification of the ocean.
Algae and other plants are lovely for photosynthesis, which releases oxygen and absorbs CO2. But as soon as you burn them they do exactly the REVERSE - sequester oxygen and release the stored carbon, primarily as CO2.
I do not know who is responsible for all these articles about burning plants and vegetable oils, pretending they do not add carbon dioxide to the air. But you realize that in terms of the chemical reactions, burning plants that are growing now is very similar to burning fossil fuels, which is just very old plants and animals.
Let's just bite the bullet and admit that if we are to reach 350 ppm CO2 we will have to forego ALL burning and go with solar, wind, tidal, geothermic and possibly other things we have not yet imagined. But it has to be based on fact.
Joe
"Can you hear my frustration?"
I hear you but I'm afraid that your frustrations are misplaced on biofuels.
"Any biofuel works by providing carbon to be burned. Burning any source of carbon releases CO2 into the air. Period. End of story."
That is not true and has been disproven by several biologists and chemists. I didn't major in biology or chemistry but I studied enough to understand that each plant has different chemical makeups. Plants may release carbon dioxide into the air but when burned, carbon dioxide isn't the only chemical being released. Rush Limbaugh and George Monbiot are both wrong to suggest that all biofuels are bad just because corn is the worst source being used to discredit all biofuels.
"Algae and other plants are lovely for photosynthesis, which releases oxygen and absorbs CO2. But as soon as you burn them they do exactly the REVERSE - sequester oxygen and release the stored carbon, primarily as CO2.
I do not know who is responsible for all these articles about burning plants and vegetable oils, pretending they do not add carbon dioxide to the air. But you realize that in terms of the chemical reactions, burning plants that are growing now is very similar to burning fossil fuels, which is just very old plants and animals. "
Burning crude oil releases dangerous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere while good biofuels such as hemp and algae release negligible amounts in pale comparison and they can be controlled. Biofuels also naturally produce lower emissions, barely contain any sulfur and burns far less carbon monoxide during the burning process. You are confusing corn with hemp and algae. There are minor drawbacks such as density compared to petroleum, rubber gaskets, and coagulation under cold temperatures but there are efforts to mitigate those minor issues. Even crude oil got off to a rocky start and it took trial and error to figure out how to upgrade those oil refineries to deal with heavy oil when the "easy oil" supplies were dwindling in certain places.
There was plenty of evidence back in the early half of the 20th century that hemp could be used for fuel but Big Oil bought off Congress and pushed them into raising taxes on Cannabis production and then outlawing it. Do a google search on "big Oil", dupont, "big cotton", "reefer madness", and hemp and see for yourself. There is plenty of scientific evidence being suppressed by the same corporate fascists who killed the electric car and solar panels until recently.
"Let's just bite the bullet and admit that if we are to reach 350 ppm CO2 we will have to forego ALL burning and go with solar, wind, tidal, geothermic and possibly other things we have not yet imagined. But it has to be based on fact."
I don't bite such bullets especially when I have plenty of documents to back up the fact that not all biofuels are the same. Do you know what goes in the making of solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal energy plants, tidal stream generators, and so on? It takes petroleum to make those plastics and I'm trying to tell you that hempseed oil can replace petroleum even in production. Do you prefer solar panels and wind turbines whose plastic is made out of petroleum or would you rather switch to solar panels and wind turbines whose plastic is made from hempseed oil and are far more durable and reliable? I could ask the same thing of paper made from hemp which used to be the case until the 20th century versus paper made from wood that takes far more crude oil to burn. Hemp is no ordinary biofuel unlike corn. It is the greatest gift from Mother Nature and we should have capitalized on its 26000+ industrial uses instead of messing with crude oil for the last 70-80 years. If not hemp, we could extract the chemical equivalent of light sweet crude oil from algae that is carbon neutral and use that in place of conventional fossil fuels. Like hemp, algae is far more environmentally friendly and can be put to industrial use. We have two choices. We can keep drilling in all the wrong places and bombing other nations for "easy" oil or we can agree on setting the course for creating more jobs to grow the plants for thousands of industrial uses and respect the environment at the same time. Which do you prefer?
One other thought to consider is that replacing petroleum with hemp and algae can actually enforce conservation and fuel efficiency because we would be forced to not take the resource for granted unlike petroleum.
I said: "Any biofuel works by providing carbon to be burned. Burning any source of carbon releases CO2 into the air. Period. End of story."
You said: "That is not true and has been disproven by several biologists and chemists."
Show us the chemical formulas. What is being burned if not carbon, and what is the chemical reaction? Show us the peer reviewed articles that say burning plant matter does not release carbon. Heck, the most familiar burning of cellulose is a campfire or wood fireplace.
Even in the articles you cite, there is no assertion that burning of carbon does not release burned-carbon by-products. Those articles strike me as happy news articles released by the producers or boosters of cannabis or algae or rapeseed oil.
As we dither down ineffective paths of thought, we allow time to pass during which the truly clean solutions are neglected and carbon keeps building up in the atmosphere. We have to go with solar and wind.
Joe
"Show us the chemical formulas. What is being burned if not carbon, and what is the chemical reaction? Show us the peer reviewed articles that say burning plant matter does not release carbon. Heck, the most familiar burning of cellulose is a campfire or wood fireplace. "
That sounds exactly like talk from Big Oil but I'll cut you some slack and see if I can correct your misunderstanding. First, I already showed you the articles and I gave you plenty of hints on what to search on google but you are repeating the same mistakes George Monbiot and Rush Limbaugh make when they lie about all biofuels being bad.
The reason why the cannabis plant is our solution to a virtually pollutant tree atmosphere is because of the plants high level of cellulose content, which can be made into ethanol and methanol fuels. These fuels allow for a more complete combustion of hydrocarbons, providing a higher, lead free octane than the gas currently being used and with less carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. This is possible because of the biomass that the cannabis plant biologically produces can be converted into virtually any sort of energy. It is estimated that nearly all energy produced by the use of fossil fuels could instead be produced from cannabis biomass. The cannabis biomass conversion to fuel and gasoline is at a fraction of the cost of oil, coal, or nuclear energy which means we are saving our environment and our plenty of money. That is why Big Oil has been trying to brainwash us into believing that only fossil fuels are our answer for decades.
I understand that you have an issue with carbon dioxide and so do I but not all CO2s are created equal. The cannabis plant when burned and released into the atmosphere only releases carbon dioxide absorbed during its growing season, which is just a few months. While, the burning of fossil fuels releases CO2 from millions of years ago, the earth’s atmosphere then was very different from today's. Also, it is important to note that the cannabis plant produces enough oxygen throughout its growing season to counterbalance all the carbon dioxide it will later put into the atmosphere when burned as fuel.
Before the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, Henry Ford utilized hemp fuel for cars, and his first Model T was designed to run on methanol petrol, produced from hemp seeds. Before 1937, race cars, military vehicles, U.S. farmers, and auto drivers used a methanol based fuel. When Henry Ford built his car made of hemp fibres, the car was actually bullet proof. Most vehicles aren't even close. How much oil do we have to keep burning importing cheap metal from China when we could built durable equivalents from plant fibres here at home?
America needs to stop being ignorant to the fact that there is a conceivable way in which we can save this planet. The cannabis plant deserves to be used because it doesn’t release dangerous amounts of chemical smoke into the atmosphere unlike fossil fuels. The cannabis plant can also be a major player in breaking the oil ties to the Middle East. The FCDA have produced their biomass equation, and it shows that cannabis biomass is the most effective and potentially cheapest and most reliable ways to produce energy. We should be running cars on hemp oil, and utilizing the 50,000 commercial uses of the cannabis plant. We would have to change our engines from gasoline to diesel but the Germans are doing a better job of improving those diesel engines. For those who want to keep their gasoline engine powered vehicles, algal oil is the environmentally friendly substitute.
"As we dither down ineffective paths of thought, we allow time to pass during which the truly clean solutions are neglected and carbon keeps building up in the atmosphere."
Wrong, we're to try to correct misunderstandings. You corrected some of my misunderstandings and I did some of the same. The time spent correcting our misunderstandings could pay off instead. You should know that even solar panels and wind turbines have no future unless people are willing to switch from using fossil fuels to petroleum free biofuel solutions such as hemp and algae. I hope you know that unlike other biofuels, hemp and algae require ZERO petroleum to manufacture.
Another thing to consider is the way energy meetings actually take place so that we might figure out where we are going wrong. Have you ever been to meetings at the Dept of Energy? The oil goons always spin the argument that biofuels are worse than fossil fuels when some environmentalist brings up the idea of any biofuel other than corn. I have a few recorded transcripts from one of my friends who contracts to DOE as a self-employed worker.
"We have to go with solar and wind."
We can't limit our alternatives. Solar and wind alone won't cut it just as you and I know that biofuels aren't the sole solution. In case I didn't make it clear, I'm for all of them but there's more to it than just that. You still did not answer my earlier question but let me ask it another way. Would you prefer to send more coal miners to their death beds just to make those conventional solar panels or plastics for those wind turbines or would you prefer converting coal miners into hemp/algae farmers and growers who will extract the environmentally friendly plant oils and other byproducts used to make better solar panels and wind turbines for a change? I just gave you a few hints towards some truly green jobs.
Here's a reference article you may want to read on the current production of solar panels:
Making solar panels requires old-fashioned coal-fired power
http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/index.ssf/2009/06
/making_solar_panels_requires_o.html
Replace coal with hemp or algae power for manufacturing those panels and then we can make solar energy even better. Think about it.
Hemp is a great source of energy and great for all our manufacturing needs but that would put those "concerned" environmentalists outta business. Then there's putting business outta business. I can shoot down a regular solar panel made of coal with one shot but if that same panel were made of hemp, I wouldn't be able to break it. Solar manufacturers need to make their products disposable to keep people coming back. I want solar panels to be made of hemp too but put it this way pal. Not gonna happen.
In other words, solar manufacturers can benefit from capitalism, right?
Better yet, we could leave all biofuels alone if we would get more tracks laid out and bring more people and business together instead of forcing too much traveling to work. I'd rather be the one smoking pot than letting my car do that.
More train tracks would be welcome indeed.
This article makes a very, very important point: The language DOES matter -- and progressives DO have to take the language back and keep it where it expresses true intent.
It can all be boiled down simply:
Is the language, with the called for actions, fear-based?
Or is it love-based?
This concept must not be marginalized because it's everything that matters.
Are we thinking and planning out of fear?
Or are our thoughts and decisions and actions made out of true love?
Obama makes a good speach. He would have made a very good vice president. But...as a Texan might say, he is all hat and no cattle.
and as William Shakespeare would say in his play and title:
"MUCH ADO about NOTHING" .
or as americans - especially of the african american community would say :
"Talk the Talk, Walk the Walk"
Obama is none of that. completely hollow echo-chamber.
Chris Hedges' "War is a force that gives us meaning" outlines the USA need for war-like stances in the processing of nearly everything. "Rambo"-like action and reaction is not an unreachable idealized form of the USA but one ready to be assumed at any moment. This readiness for violence is historical and socially-engineered, the former can be seen by observing USA history in what became the USA, and the latter by observing how elite-owned USA media manipulates what citizens see, hear, and read.
And what better way to sell the need for violence than fear?
Adam Curtis' "The Power of Nightmares" outlines the ever strengthening fear-based nature of the last 50 years of first-world politics. Citizens no longer look to leaders for inspiration to make a better world, but protection from a frightening one, the fearful nature of which is both "our own" physical and psychological construction. Of course, "our own" being constructs ready-made for us by elites and propagated through elite-controlled private media and government officials. The blood necessary for this perpetual War Against Fear being, of course, ordinary people's, just as it is in every "War Against...."
Education is essential. I can see no other way out. That avenue is also under pressure as "textbooks" become more and more like propaganda instruments, but that also can be resisted and thwarted.
We need to learn that we are largely at the beck and call of powerful humans that manipulate us to do what they want because we are not taught the truths of our history and of the world.
Everything you say is true, unfortunately. Even more unfortunate is the reason elites are so effective: They have learned to systematically apply the findings of cognitive-behavioral science in their mass-messaging.
Take, for example, the simple theory of "actor-observer" bias. This theory states that 1) people are far more likely to attribute their own bad behavior (or the bad behavior of the group with which they identify) to circumstances rather than enduring attributes, and 2) they are far more likely to attribute the bad behavior of others to enduring attributes rather than circumstances.
Thus, from the perspective of the European conquerers in North America, the "Indians" attacked European colonists because the "Indians" were "savages" (attribute), not because the colonists were driving them off their land (circumstance). But, again from the European perspective, the European colonists attacked the "indians" because they were protecting their way of life from attack (circumstance), not because they were aggressive colonists (attribute).
The same bias is very clearly reflected in the ideological foundations of Zionism.
This is ideological groundwork of "national myth-making," which the ruling elite has developed into a science. It is repeated over and over again by mass-media personalities, politicians, think-tankers, et. al. The only hope for the planet is for a powerful, enlightened, transnational liberation movement of humanity that is not controlled by elites, but rather, like a healthy immune system, constantly hunts down and purges all efforts to co-opt it.
I am not hopeful.
Thanks, that Actor/Observer Bias is enough to discourage anyone and is why it is used on the masses... it is another term for rationalization.
But it only takes a little spark of hope with truth to aid survival as Woody Allen said something like,
I was happy, when I gave up hope.
There is no Hope or Change with Obama
Hope plus two bucks still buys a good cup of coffee in all but the most high-rent areas.
Change is what you leave in the barista's tip jar in hope that the next cup tastes as good as the last one.
The words last night were correct. President Obama didn't drag out "clean coal" as the savior of climate change. Nor did he drag out nuclear energy.
He wants to know how to stop the oil leak, so I immediately wrote him with how I'd do it. Hopefully he'll pass the idea on, the Department of Energy will get back to me with why it won't work, then I'll get back to them with a counteroffer to satisfy their objections, and then we'll build a prototype. At least that's the way things ought to work.
President Obama would get what he wants with the solar ideas that I have, except so far all the grant money has gone to two groups: 1. Fat cat corporations, the big guys, get all the money regardless of the lack of merits of their ideas. They make up in grant writing ability and in good friends inside the government, what they lack in scientific merit. 2. The most prestigious professors at the high-rated universities also get the most money. Most students have to go to the good universities, and numbers of them will cheat to get in or their parents will pay off the university, because a ticket into these joints is a meal ticket for the rest of their lives. Even drunken fools like George W. Bush can succeed in their careers with a Harvard MBA nyuk nyuk nyuk. Inside, the hot colleges are just nasty with hissy fits and catfights between male professors, and they crush a few of their students too. Just like Hollywood, it's all money.
At the state level, all of the "transformative" energy grant money has actually gone first to cities and towns, and then to insulation, which is ok and it benefits Owens-Corning but the transformative part of "transformative" is a joke. Too bad.
Oh, and yesterday afternoon the oil companies got $35 million in Congressional subsidies. Words: "go commit hara-kiri!" Actions: subsidies.
Is he going to transfer the leadership of the MMA to the NRC, another profoundly dysfunctional agency waiting for a horrid accident?
The fact that Obama did not mention Electric cars in his renewable energy mix, tells me that he is still under the grasp of Big Oil. When he has driven one, visited a manufacturing plant and talked to the people about all of the unbelievable advantages, then I will believe him and only then.
Jimmy Carter was not mentioned in his speech either. Carter started the renewable energy campaign and put solar cells on the roof of the White House to show his support. Regan quickly tore them down and started the campaign against renewables.
Barach, put those solar panels back on the Roof. Do something besides making speaches.
There is no significant research taking place on transit. None. Ideas are sitting out here. The ideas are mothballed. Idiots!
The best advance in electric cars is my (I came up with it 10 years ago but it really couldn't be patented, or developed unless I was an auto company) battery swapping machinery. An Israeli company called BetterWorld.com has just started testing three taxis in Tokyo with a battery-swapping device. Battery swapping eventually means that you can drive your personal electric car across the country at about 80 cents a gallon equivalent. I'm at least glad that someone (a foreign company) is finally developing it.
How about you do something besides making blog posts. Quit fantasizing about electric cars and start arranging your life so you don't have to depend upon a personal vehicle to get around. Get a bike. Learn to use public transportation. If necessary, move to a place where those transportation options are practical.
"Get a bike. Learn to use public transportation."
Easier said than can be done. How many places make it feasible?
"If necessary, move to a place where those transportation options are practical."
Right, I'll move to Arlington or Washington DC and pay 4 times as much for rent than what I am currently paying for 15 miles west. I don't know about your area but public transportation is a shithole in Washington. Tell me how it feels when delays are induced just because trains arrived "too early". Tell me how it feels to see those fares going up but no noticeable improvements on the trains. Tell me how you like it when a bus skips your stop because it was late in arriving due to congestion and you end up having to wait another half an hour.
I live in a city and do not require a car except when someone is sick. Then we can call a cab, whose infrequent use is much cheaper than owning a car. City life is not for everyone, but there are alternatives that preserve the green and quiet (except for those lawn mowers and leaf blowers!) qualities of the suburbs without its fuel wastefulness.
Right now, most individuals are trapped into dependency on automobiles by planning decisions made over the last 60 years. We have to get over lusting over a big fertilized, pesticide laden yard and big energy inefficient individual houses located so that a car is required even to purchase a loaf of bread.
We need to start to think about mixed communities that include housing, workplaces, shopping and schools, all within walking distance, biking distance or serviced by local jitneys. Blocks of townhouses with a parklike center are more energy efficient and much better for playing children, lonely seniors. High rises provide views, which can be lovely places to live looking over hills, forests or plains. I think a lot of mental health problems could be addressed by having some community interactions on a daily basis more so than by Ambien or Cymbalta.
Railroads are also better than highways. We need to increase the number of routes which have remained mostly the same for the past 100 years despite increases in population.
Joe
I haven't given much thought to cabs. I came across a couple but their charge rates were too high so I gave up on that idea. We were supposed to get funding for the contracts to expanding railroad service to Dulles Airport and more bus routes but that never came to pass after gas prices went back down. I live in a suburb but not far from the exurbs in Loudoun County but I don't waste like most suburbanites. I even collected some of fresh trash and assembled some of that hardware into a working computer. I plan on donating it once I get to test that it really works well since I don't have room to store the computer. The closer you get to the center of Washington, the more you'll see people walking than driving but traffic never ceases even then. What city do you live in by the way? My area could learn from yours.
I live in Brooklyn. New York City has a subway system that was built in the era before the oil and the automobile lobbies convinced everyone that all we need are more cars and highways. The basic national railroad infrastructure was also laid down chiefly during the 1800s and has not expanded or improved much since then.
Your area has a pretty good start with the subway system that reaches out to many suburbs. It could be expanded if we could ever find a politician these days who puts public good before immediate private gain. Fares on subways and railroads should be subsidized instead of more highways.
But we have no vision left. Must fund wars. Must fund wars.
Joe
You're the second one I met here from NYC. I heard that the NYC metro beats the Washington one. MD and inner DC are pretty good but Northern VA is a shithole when it comes to metro rail and bus routes. It gets worse out in the suburbs. We have a VRE but that is very limited.
My last Democrat State Delegate Chuck Caputo campaigned on more drilling and expanding route 50 in the empty areas of Loudoun County and western Fairfax County. I wrote to him about my concerns about metro and demanded improvements. His response was very cold. He told me that it's not a high priority and that it belongs to the local govt in Washington. His Republican opponent hammered him for constantly skipping votes on improving transportation woes. He had no solution either but he won anyway. The Democrats were looking like they would go beyond Mark Warner's centrist bullshit and reach out to liberals but nope, they turned us back off and now the state gets redder all over again. I am totally pissed off at all of this clowning around on transportation woes by both parties in Richmond and Washington.
FDR gave us the warfare, welfare state that we have today, the Empire has been built on his foundation.
from the article:
quoting the president ~ "The oil spill is not the last crisis America will face." ~
it isn't over...may not be for a long time...
as the old saw goes: this may not be the last crisis, but you can see it from here...
take back your life, take back the land...September 22, 2012...
While Chernus is wondering if Obama was sufficiently entertaining in his "call to war", (It is always about war with Americans, isn't it...war on drugs, war on terror etc) the causes of the crisis and the solutions are there to see.
Take a look at the US supreme court. In 2008 the exclusively Democratic and Republican appointed court led by Souter threw out the damages amounting to two and a half billion against Exxon. Alito recused himself, as he himself owns hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of shares in the oil firm. The other judges reduced the damages to the ridiculously low, 500 million, an amount that is chump change compared to Exxon's sister compay BP's latest proposed multi-billion dollar dividend.
So if you owned BP, if you ran BP, why would you excercise any caution? The "supremes" have your back. On the other hand, if you, like millions of Americans, don't like these oil spills, then you need a better supreme court. You want a better supreme court? Vote for a party that wants that too. In the meantime, remember Elena Kagan, the first supreme court nominee in forty years with zero experience? Anybody wondering how many shares she has in BP?
'And he (FDR) often spoke of the New Deal as a war against the Great Depression.' And yet, millions of Americans go without jobs, are losing their homes, and Congress can't pass an unemployment extention, let alone think of a Tier 5 (added weeks for those who have exhausted benefits).
Jobs, like the oil 'gusher', is something that is obviously beyond the ability and/or will of Obama and Congress to fix, but political theater is alive and well. Obama will give credits to big oil companies to 'research and develop' green technology while resuming his push for more oil drilling off of the South and East Coast. That's my take on it.
Also,
'"We pray that a hand may guide us through the storm towards a brighter day."
Perhaps Obama thought he was issuing a call to collective effort for the common good. But most Americans would hear it as a warning to defend ourselves more militantly against new dangers to come. They would focus more on the storm than the brighter day.'
Most Americans aren't that stupid.
I learned that Obama just cut the subsidies for wind power because the electric companies were complaining that wind power was idling their existing power plants, thereby stranding those assets. Also, he was concerned that cutting use of coal would cut jobs; coal employs more people than coal and Obama wants to maintain his polling numbers in Ohio, WV and PA.
Do you have a source to back this up?
Any president can and will give bullshit speeches on responding to a crisis like this one. What I would like to know is why the fuck traffic congestion has gotten worse despite the oil spill getting worse? Do people really give a shit about devastated lives or money? Obama deserves to be grilled unlike Carter but this crisis is more than just Obama. How come no brave progressive author cares to write about traffic congestion on the road and metro fuckups getting worse in America?
"How come no brave progressive author cares to write about traffic congestion on the road and metro fuckups getting worse in America?"
Oh, but they have. Read James Kuntsler and Richard Heinberg.
The traffic congestion is just a symptom of the progressing collapse of your infrastructure. Roads, bridges, sewers, hospitals, and everything else is breaking down as a result of thirty years of tax cuts and rampant military spending. You country is thundering down the same road the Soviets took, but, being 'Mericans, you have to do it louder, faster, better than everyone else.
I don't get it on traffic congestion being the symptom of what you describe. Roads are always subsidized while metro stations don't get much. But the people who run the metro systems do a horrible job of it. They force delays and never improve the system despite the rise of mechanical failure frequencies causing major delays.
"And the product Obama was selling" was Obama himself and his reelection in 2012. Go take a jump, Barack. In the immortal words of Wanda Sykes, "You ain't shit!"
Obama has exactly *zero* chance of being re-elected. His performance, and lack thereof, will be accurately and devastatingly used by the Republicans to scuttle the Dems to eternal second place.
Get ready to say hello to the ultimate Corporate puppet, President Sarah...
Didn't you hear the clarion call Obama shouted to the nation last night?
"get out there and pray"
Not so different from Bush, who after 9/11 told all good 'Muricuns to 'Go out and shop' to keep the artificial economy going just that much longer...
War War War
Even when you win, the struggle never ends.
It seems natural that Barry's televised Oval Office speech relied on metaphors of war. After all, that is the only product that Amerikkka exports anymore.
Barry's bravado, that apparently produced a $20 billion escrow fund to clean up the oil disaster and repay lost incomes to businesses and workers, seems typically ineffectual. We will find out that this agreement is laced with all kinds of loopholes for BP to avoid responsibility.
Barry studiously avoided stating any consequences for the greedy bastards at BP who made the policies that created state-of-the-art drilling technology, but ignored any technology to prevent and minimize the disaster that they created.
As usual, Barry caved to his corporate benefactors. It's business as usual and the taxpayers will be stuck with the tab and the Gulf of Mexico will become, as another CD poster called it, "The Forbidden Zone," where all life is extinct.
The end of life on planet Earth is on the horizon.
Much of what is written in the article is balanced and realistic. US citizens are a strange lot and to get them to see reality is a long haul.
In the comments, both here and elsewhere, there is a proof of the same from the USA.
Blame BP.
Blame Oil (not gasoline).
Blame Obama.
Blame Plastic.
Blame CO2
Blame China------always.
Blame those who point to the dangers of oil, especially gasoline.
Never blame yourself, and never, never pay the true cost both for the gasoline and for repairing the damage caused by burning it.
This comment is aimed at those who shoal like fish so that the total can ignore those that die, secure in the knowledge that the ones that do have no say; which is the reasoning of the sub-human intellect.
The US citizen has become the most significantly sub-human group of people on earth.
They call it wealth; success; winning; freedom; Democracy; apple pie; Halloween----and so-on.
Empire Envy empirePie June 16th, 2010
What can we learn from dying empires?
What can we learn from vying empires?
What can we learn from rising empires?
What can we learn from flexing flesh or the dawning of a new day
or the new day of the big money lay away?
Has the stage become too complex?
Is the subject of Easter Island too much to vex?
Have a look beyond tomb of Ozymandias to the board rooms
of enamored puppets of power blight, ... of denial of might; ... all with copious short sight
as we exchange plenty for scarcity monopoly and control
to power the wag dogged garden of paternity
the full frontal lobotomy of Mars penis envy
ejaculating nationhood with isms swimming in the oily ‘Love Channel’
to build bolder mansions for namesakes to also be long forgotten.
What will it take to return to the garden?
What will it take to return to our home,
uncontested by borders or hoarders
or new world orders?
Much as there are elements on the article that are useful, and despite having tried to overcome it, I cannot get over the feeling that the war psychosis is the core of the problem. As such Obama's words ring uncannily hollow, as if coming from the mouth of a junior school pupil. Almost all quotes from US presidents sound the same.
GW Bush set the absurdity in sharp relief. The USA is a defunct entity and wisely managed radical change is a necessity. The USA will probably disappear but without wisdom the USA will disappear amidst great local and international suffering, deserved and applied respectively, as all the signs have been indicating for some time now.
This is no time to beat about the Bush.