Monday, January 26, 2009

The Age of Anti-Carbonism

The Age of Anti-Carbonism
It's a little bit highbrow but you might enjoy it....
"...By gripping and allocating the supply of energy the politicians gain a major additional instrument of political power.

Promoting alternatives to coal and oil requires government interventions in the form of selective taxation, subsidies, quotas, and price controls. Anti-carbonists hold that government is untainted by the greedy quest for profits and thus is morally superior to private actors. Any industrial clients that government creates with energy policies will also be subject to non-economic but virtuous pressures to hire minorities, locate in favored districts, contribute to political groups, and conform to fashionable agendas of the moment....

23 comments:

  1. The Dems claimed Bush made war pay for itself. Of course, given that the Dems had already made corruption and crime pay for itself, it is no surprise that they would believe Bush wanted to setup some competition.

    ReplyDelete
  2. LOL! yes. I am of the firm opinion that whatever the "Left" says, you'll find it describes EXACTLY what they themselves are doing. Over and over and over again.

    It's going to be even more interesting watching them contort themselves into pretzels being happy about Obama doing things they would have condemned Bush for - everything from getting out of bed in the morning to authorizing air strikes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To be honest, I'm not sure whether Obama authorized that air strike or not. Given how Bush ran things in the military, the people in Iraq and Afghanistan were given great leeway when it came to acting upon tactical intelligence.

    There would be no waiting for DC to authorize a strike on Osama, for example, as was the case in Clinton's reign.

    So if that is the case here, then Obama must be seriously pissed that the military just went off and did something like that without asking his permission.

    Of course, he didn't sign an Executive Order "forbidding" such things because 1. it'd be hard to justify politically and 2. his grasp of military reality is a bit weak.

    While Bush knew just about every hamlet and town in the hot zones of Iraq by name and what the general progress reports there were, as testified by military bloggers that went and did a sit down meeting/council with the former Prez, Obama knows exactly what about the current status of Afghanistan and Iraq?

    We may never see the freedom the military used to have when they could simply blow up terrorists when they got the operational intel on their whereabouts. Because there is no way Obama can prevent the news of such things from getting out. He doesn't control the AP/Reuters or Pakistani press nor the Taliban press nor the AQ press, no matter how far his reach goes here in America.

    If Obama could have done such things in secret, he may have simply continued Bush's strategy. But it won't be secret, now will it. And it is so convenient to prioritize your own political status over the military's safety, even though the military is risking its members to fulfill a mission set by politicians.

    Of course, Gates may have convinced Obama to "let things stand" or at least Obama hasn't finished consolidating his own power base in DC and so is letting Gates do whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The party of Tom Delay calling Democrats crooks reminds me of Don Rumsfeld coining the term Islamo-fascist. Rose says the Left is as corrupt as Bush. You both paint with too wide a brush.While Bush could name every hamlet and town in the hot zones of Iraq he and many in his cabinet are war criminals that preemptively started the war that created those hot zones, gave orders to torture prisoners and recruited people from Chile and Argentina that had been trained by our CIA in the art of torture. But hey, in some circles any means is justifiable. A hundred Iraqis a day captured, tortured, then murdered and left in the streets to teach the Iraqi people the futility of resistance. So Haliburton made $20 billion. Dick Cheney and George Bush are heroes. Iraq is the shinning example of what is possible when Republicans spread Democracy. Gasp!

    ReplyDelete
  5. George Bush had a stunning history of service in the military before he went on to wow the business world as a CEO. Bush found it 'convenient' to redistribute middle class wealth to private corporations involved in the war effort. It was a trick he'd learned in the private sector which had made him a small fortune. The military risked its soldiers who were paid far less than what private security contractors paid mercenary soldiers on their payrolls. By 2007 mercenary soldiers in Iraq equaled the number of American soldiers there. Of course the war was such a success that there is not much reporting coming out of that bombed out husk of a country these days, what is, as was always the case, has been highly manipulated to make it palatable for your consumption.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bush is out of office now. Did you know that?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yet he figures prominently in every comment on this thread. May his presidency serve as a bright white phosphorous light that burns away the myths that you would surround him with.

    ReplyDelete
  8. When it comes to "Global Warming" I'd rather talk about Clinton and Gore, who had EIGHT YEARS to do whatever they wanted to do about it.

    So, tell me - what did they do? What did Mr. Global Warming, Al Gore, arguably the second most powerful man in the world for eight YEARS, DO about "Global Warming?"

    Zip. Zero. Nada.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nothing. Neither did Cheney. Your gripe is? Oh that's right, carbon is being politicized and we may have to send money to voting districts rather than OPEC. Well you've chosen to side with Chavez and some pretty vicious regimes in the Middle East and Africa rather than rally to the Democratic cause that will put people back to work and more money in our pockets. How ugly of you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 11:16 you are obviously off your meds again, Little One.

    Rose side with Chavez? You are stark raving bonkers on that one.

    And as for putting rallying to the "Democratic cause that will put people back to work amd more money in our pockets" you have obviously consumed the purple koolaid. Just looked at the stimulus package and there ain't squat there.

    Frankly, I don't think Rose's constructive comments are ugly. They are comments that require us to think.

    And I won't call you ugly as you did Rose. I will just call you close-minded and stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  11. the "Democratic cause that will put people back to work amd more money in our pockets"

    You mean the drunken bacchanal that is going on in DC right now?

    With our legislators throwing pizza at the walls?

    "Infrastructure" birth control, no white guys, PORK, PORK, PORK!

    Nobody stopping to think, or reason. Just throw that money out the door as fast as we possibly can.

    You will wake up tomorrow to the scene of the devastation, windows broken, drapes pulled down, guacamole, semen and feces ground into the carpet and pizza stuck to the ceiling.

    In the meantime, the person whose retirement funds were just evaporated by half or worse gets no help. The business who can't get his usual line of credit closes. No help, no restoration, not even any consideration, lost to the world, invisible to the legislators who only want to do what looks like they are solving the problem.

    They'll happily impose higher fees, taxes and restrictions in the name of "solutions" and you'll drink that latest batch of kool-aid like it is the finest champagne.

    ReplyDelete
  12. She should side with Chavez. But Social Democratic government is too bitter to swallow with her neo-conservative tea. She would put foreign corporations back in charge of Venezuela's oil fields where they belong. Those peasants should just go get a job and produce something and quit relying on their government to provide them with medicine and education. Those slackers think that their government owes them something. All of the land is owned by a few elite descendants of Europe's feudal system that would drive Chavez from power with the help of our CIA. Bush tried and failed. But hey, at least he tried. Never see that happen under Obama. This troubles Rose more than does global warming. Her world is going to hell in Obama's hand basket. A nice Walmart store in the neighborhood would sure go a long way towards making her feel better. After all, we have to spend our money somewhere to strengthen China's economy and keep their people busy so that they don't decide to come over here 'cause we have enough problems of our own right now. Right Rose?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Semen and feces ground into the carpet and pizza stuck to the ceiling? Do you mean to say that the corporate lobby is back in the legislature. Well that's it. Get a 215 card Rose, we are in for some hard times.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lobbyists, Senators and Congress"people." Of every stripe.

    Unless you think repainting a bridge somewhere is going to fix the economy. Then, I suppose, this is all very constructive and well thought out. Guaranteed to work.

    Never mind that in California we have neglected infrastructure improvements for 30 years, now it's the magical solution to everything you ever imagined.

    Cue: That's the sound of the men working on the chain gang.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Actually you're wrong. When countries spend money to build and improve infrastructure it is an investment in people. Besides putting people to work it increases the tax base and creates something useful to be used by everyone. When the rich get a tax break infrastructure becomes outdated and fails - bridges start falling into rivers. Deregulating finance institutions and corporations, as we have done for the last thirty years, allows corruption within those institutions. The white collar crime has destroyed our economy and is forcing taxpayers to bail them out. These are symptom of Milton Friedman's economic policies that caused 45% unemployment, bank failure, and tax payer funded bailout of those institutions as well as the bailout of American corporations doing business in countries in South America where Friedman's policies were originally put into effect. We need to start investing in our people. Instead we have allowed corporations to close doors here and use Chinese factories and workers to make products for sale to Americans. These companies often move their offices to countries where they do not have to pay taxes, We have opened the door to foreign countries and allowed them to buy our American corporations and patents. Our money has been redistributed to the richest few percent. The fat has been carved off of the wide ass of the middle class and shipped out of the country. Our young people fight wars of convenience that enrich war profiteers, Part of their profits buy propaganda to keep the population in line. Their CEOs sit at the tables of multiple boardrooms that control information, build weapons, and create national trade policy. You have a right to be cynical. It is two bad that you spend all your time misdirecting your anger. You would do well to quit listening to Corporate America's spokespersons. But no way you are going to change.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rose,did you know that 1.4 million people went to Obamas Inaug? And 11 of them missed work that day.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rose, do you think Wall Street should be further regulated? How about the futures markets?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rose, do you think we should nationalize those companies and banks that have stolen you and your children's future?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Nope. Nor do I buy your premise.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Do you think the global economy sinking into depression is because of the American housing bubble?

    ReplyDelete
  21. No. Why are you asking such simplistic questions?

    It doesn't matter now anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It matters.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.