The Economics of Political Spin 81 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Current political spin on CNBC and other supposed US "business" channels remind me of a line in the great movie Chinatown, staring Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, and John Huston. I can't quote it exactly, but somewhere in the movie private investigator Jake Gitties (played by Nicholson) says something like this: "Forget the newspapers and the radio and the television, if you want to find out what really happened, follow the money."
For the last few days as the Democratic convention ramps up, the economic propaganda machine led by the talking heads on CNBC has been in full gear. They are warning us of the dire stock market consequences of an Obama presidency. Spending will be out of control they say! The US economy will go into recession and America will suffer the consequences of Obama's lack of experience!
News flash: the economy already IS in recession. Spending already IS out of control as the US fiscal deficit doubled under the Bush administration's watch! The stock market already HAS suffered dire consequences as the S&P500 has returned an anemic 2.7% over the past 10 years. Inflation IS already raging. Further, we have no energy policy, the banking system is in complete disarray, the Bush administration has federalized the national mortgage market and taken control of a publically traded investment firm (Bear Stearns).
So, one question pops into my mind: How on Earth can US economic policy possibly get worse than the last 8 years of George Bush's "leadership"? Second question: since McCain has changed all of his so-called "maverick" policy stances in order to align himself totally with the "Bush conservatives" (I prefer to call them "radicals" as there is nothing "conservative" about Bush and his cohorts), wouldn't 4 years of McCain in effect mean 12 years running of Bush's horrid economic policies? The answer is yes, and the consequences of continuation the path we are on would be dire indeed.
As Jake says - just follow the money. Are you better off than 8 years ago? Are you keeping up with inflation and high energy prices? Are your stock market returns satisfactory the last 8 years? Have you noticed the middle class taxpayer is bailing out the Wall Street firms that created the credit crisis? Have you noticed the middle class taxpayer is paying his fair share while hedge fund managers that make $300 million on a single deal pay no taxes whatsoever? Have you noticed that the Bernanke- and Paulsen-led "regulatory changes" are putting all the risk on the US taxpayers' backs while all the upside goes to the Wall Streeters? Is anyone paying attention here?
If you are a Bush supporter, and you have less than 1-2 million bucks, you are shooting yourself in the foot. If you are a billionaire, Bush is your man. Bigtime. Just ask Warren Buffet...then note that Buffet supports Obama. Now, there is a man with integrity. He would rather shoot himself in the foot than watch America go down the tubes.
All that said, the Democratic convention has been so horrid I had to switch it off. What an opportunity to address America! But boy was it squandered. Instead of an energy roundtable to discuss our biggest economic challenge, we had music and singing. Instead of listing all the economic policy mistakes of the Bush administration, we had an elegant production praising Ted Kennedy. Instead of making a concrete case for a new and better tax policy, we had more fluff. They are friggin blowing it.
However, I know what continued Bush policies will mean to my investments and my standard of living. I don't even look forward to that. Obama at least is a change and departure from that path. Although I don't like his energy policies (windfall profits taxes is a terrible idea, and nuclear is needed in a big way), he is my only choice versus a known quantity that is economically toxic to me and my country. Just look at the record of the last 8 years and follow the money.
Meanwhile, both parties seem incapable of bringing a strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy to their convention platforms. Let me help them out with a Strategic Long-Term, Comprehensive Energy Policy.
The US dollar has been stronger recently and this apparently has convinced folks that oil will go down as a result. Another news flash: the strength of the US dollar does nothing to address the fundamental problem of worldwide oil supply not being able to keep pace with worldwide oil demand! Proof, oil was up some 500% during Bush's term while the US dollar fell 40%. This inconvenient fact has seemingly been overlooked by the financial analysts who continue to sell off energy stocks as though oil is going back to $50. News flash: never again in your life will you see $50/barrel oil.
Bottom line to investors: Take this opportunity to buy undervalued oil stocks like StatOil (STO), ConocoPhillips (COP), ExxonMobil (XOM), Chevron (CVX) and Petrobras (PBR). Undervalued energy service firms include Schlumberger (SLB), Natl Oilwell Varco (NOV), and Nabors Industries (NBR). The steady uptrend in oil prices and inflation in the years ahead mean investors should have positions in gold bullion, taking physical possession of the American and Canadian gold coins. Another good insurance policy for the future would be DBC, the commodity ETF.
I probably sound like a broken record with my investment themes, but until the US adopts a rational energy policy, there is no reason to change strategy. Long term, energy fundamentals will dominate the economic landscape. Good luck!
Disclosure: The author owns COP, STO, PBR, SLB, and gold.
Related Articles
|
Find People on SA
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 81 comments:
I understand your frustration with the McCain & the Republicans, but do you really expect a radical departure in policy if Obama wins? His handlers will control actual policy (as was the case with Bush), not Obama. Obama will be a figurehead like Bush was.
You said Obama plans to implement wind fall taxes. He also plans to remove the E&P tax credits. This two things combined will make a bad situation worse. This will really discourage oil companies from looking and producing new reserves and nip the US coastal , ANWR, Oil shale and Bakken development in the bud. Expect gasoline to go well above $4.00 with Obama in charge.
Take econ 101.
Then go hug a tree.
Yes, I am sure Clinton balanced the "budget", but he did not balance spending. Ken Lay balanced the budget at Enron also. You have to look at total spending (including "off balance sheet" or "off budget") . Clinton was a spendthrift -- just like Bush. You might argue Bush is marginally more honest on spending, but he is so deceitful on everything else it wouldnt hold.
As you argue yourself, follow the money. Greenspan lowered rates way too far under Clinton, and then repeated the mistake under Bush. In one instance, Greenspit (not Clinton) inflated the dot-com bubble. The resulting capital gains taxes "balanced" the budget, but not spending. In the second instance, Greenspit (not Bush) inflated housing. The resulting home price gains allowed for home equity withdrawl -- and government spending still wasn't balanced.
Bernanke is following Greenspan's playbook to the letter. Even if he is not reappointed, he will be running the Fed throughout most of Obama or McCain's term.
Whichever candidate wins, Medicare is projected to go cashflow negative next year. It doesn't appear the mortgage mess will be fixed by January. While they want US troops out, even the Iraqi government thinks a sudden pull-out would cause more problems then it solves. All your arguments about tight oil markets apply no matter which candidate wins.
The facts (if you had bothered to check) are that government spending (not pretend budgets) have climbed twice as fast as GDP since JFK was president. Despite all the moronic rhetoric on the news (and this post of yours), neither political party has shown the slightest hint of spending discipline.
Your commentaries on economics are often quite good and very intelligently argued. You should stick to that, and avoid obviously partisan (and poorly thought out) rants like this
Your Fonny and right on.
longoil: yes, i do expect some changes. i think the middle class will be the focus wrt tax policy (as opposed to the ultra wealthy). i also think alternative energy will be a bigger focus. i also think foreign policy will be much better as it cannot get much worse.
sherrikrn: thank you. and i agree they are anything but patriotic (but they sure have that flag on their lapel - i mean why not? the US treasury was used as their personal ATM machine.
User93139: thanks for all the details in your mind expanding comment.
Paulus: i feel your pain, i am not happy with either party. that said, given a choice between 4 more years of bush and something (anything!) different, i'll go with the different.
sonnydogsuardog: you make the incorrect assumption that my investments have been in the S&P500. if you had read my earlier posts, you know that i have been advising people to get OUT of the S&P500. wrt spell checking, i ran the hotmail spell checker, and it found an error or two which were corrected. could you point out which word(s) it missed please? thanks alot.
gramps2: differences between bush & clinton:
1) clinton reduced the size of the federal government to the size it was under the kennedy administration and balanced the budget. bush has grown the size of the US gov to the largest in history (by far) and doubled the size of the debt in only 8 years. meanwhile, every report says middle class americans are getting LESS from the bush gov despite the growth and expense.
2) clinton's tax policies were fair to the middle class. bush's tax cuts are solely for the wealthy. net effect: an economy where the middle class (what's left of us anyhow) is struggling mightily while hedge fund managers and wall streeters hire lawyers so they pay no taxes at all.
3) clinton increased emmissions standards. bush put utility and chemical executives in charge of his "clean air" standards and rolled back almost all emission standards since nixon created the EPA.
4) the economy during the clinton years was strong, and the US dollar was strong, and the stock and bond markets were strong.
those are just some of the differences. wrt your commens on spending, you are just wrong, and this is why the bush "conservative republicans" (i am a REAL one) are such hypocrits: clinton DID balance tax receipts and spending...that is how he handed bush a balanced budget. bush has outspent any president in history by a LARGE margin (and the numbers dont even count iraq spending). that is why your US dollar was devalued 40% under bush. i simply disagree with your comments on spending, and i believe the value of the US dollar under clinton and bush support my arguments, not yours. wrt political rants, if you haven't learned how important politics are in US economics these days after living through 8 years of bush's disastrous economic policies (not to mention the current economy and markets) then, well, i dunno what to tell ya.
msgijoe: well said, and i couldn't agree with you more.
1) Your statement is absolutely false. The Federal government, both in terms of nominal spending and as a percent of GDP were no where near as low under Clinton as they were under JFK (and it wasn't exactly small then).
2) You say "Clinton's tax policies"??? The tax law is written by Congress, not the President. The President can make whatever proposals he wants, but so can foolish website ranters. Bush has no more authority on tax law than you or I... Congress writes all laws, including the tax code
3) There were no emissions laws passed under Bush -- for better or for worse.
4) So I guess you are saying that Bush 41 did a great job and Clinton did a terrible job? Each President gets the economy that was created by his predecessors policies -- unless you want to complete discredit yourself and claim underlying macro economics change the instant some guy takes an oath.
If we look at the history of the CAFE standards. They went from 20 mpg to 27 mpg during the Reagan and Bush 41 eras and stayed flat at 27 mpg during the Clinton and Bush 43 eras. It seems the Republicans have been more proactive than Democrats in increasing CAFE standards.
During the Clinton & Gore era the number of SUVs sold increased to the point that where recently 50% of the vehicles sold in the United States qualified as light trucks. Why did Mr. Green/ climate change (i.e. Al Gore) permit this when he knew back then SUVs where contributing to climate change. I will tell you why; to pander to UAW workers. No money can be made in the USA building small cars (the profit margin is very low). With SUV and trucks the profit margin is high enough to pay high union salaries and benefits and buy votes for the Democrat party.
j>>So, one question pops into my mind: how on Earth can US economic policy possibly get worse than the last 8 years of George Bush's "leadership"?<<
Elect McCain and find out.
Republikaans are terrified that the truth will come out about ALL of their failed and malignant political, tax and spend, military, foreign and empire-building policies, as well as their human rights, anti- environment, spying on citizens and anti- Constitution agendas if a Democrat is elected - any Democrat - and they are pulling out all the stops to prevent it.
CNBC is great - if I keep the MUTE on and just watch the nice ticker roll by.
I have read many of your blogs and think think you've done great work on ebery stocks and energy policy. It's rational and well thought out. But when you start ranting about politics you "shoot yourself in the foot". It's anything but rational and well thought out. Do yourself a favor. Stop talking politics. Your political arguments are far too emotional and more importantly -THEY UNDERMINE THE CREDABILITY OF YOUR ENERGY POLICY since, rightly or wrongly, people will start attributting political motivations to it! I'd hate to see a sensible discussion on energy dismissed out of hand because of some poorly chosen political comments.
longoil: i agree that clinton backed down to the UAW and the auto manufacturers in order to get a second term. that said, it's really GM, F, and Chrysler that are to blame, and now as we sit bush has his team considering how the middle class can bail these same folks out of their financial mess. that said, if you think democrats have a choke hold on purchasing hummers and the like, please reconsider.
zagman: on the contrary, yes i did say how the democrats could do better:
1) adopt a fairer tax policy focusing on the middle class instead of cartering to multi-millionaires
2) balance the budget to strengthen the US dollar
3) get off the oil centric energy policy that is selling off our future, risking our economy, enriching bush's pals in saudi arabia as well as russia, iran, and iraq
that's a good start huh?
Paul A: mccain is just going to be 4 more years of failed bush policies.
look guys, here is the bottom line. when bush was running for office the first time, we were told "Mr. MBA" would be good for the economy, good for the markets, put a stop to spending, and lower taxes. well, it's all hypocrisy! we have a stinking economy, a weak currency, lower taxes only for the uber-rich, and, bottom line, a stock market that accurately reflects the terrible economic hole bush's idiotic economic policies have dug. electing mccain will simply allow them to cover us in the hole with more idiotic republican economic dirt. jeez, stop listening to rush L. and larry K., raise your head up, and simply look around you! look at the S&P, DJIA, banking sector, investment banking sector, US dollar index, my god men can you not see what is staring you right between the eyes? ideology can blindfold anyone...look at germany..and look what it led them into. don't be sheep, be independent, objective, and look at FACTS not ideology, labels, and economic propaganda.
We will see our collective efforts at energy independence and security fall far short, and way behind schedule, no matter who controls the white house or congress. Thank you Fitzmeister for keeping up with beating this drum. Keep it up, louder. I'm sorry to say, though, that you are going to be disappointed with any politician who is partisan (puts their career and their party above principle and country).
You'd think we'd have learned something from Jimmy Carter. Once again, higher energy prices, taxes and fewer supplies would be a surefire recipe for DISASTER.
Our only hope then would be to find another RR to pick up the pieces.
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
i wonder what they are so afraid of....saving the country?
oldfolk: i didn't say bush and cheney created the oil centric policy. what i did say was that they are intent on keeping it even though we are simply enriching saudi, russia, iran, iraq, and venezuela. this is stupidity once over, and like i said, makes their pronouncement of "protectors of the national security" a big friggin joke.
paulk: i think obama would have to work REAL hard to match the 500% increase in oil prices we have seen under bush. give me a friggin break man. wrt to carter, yeah, he was way off back in the 1970's (the last time our economy went into an oil led recession). installed solar panels on the white house and reagan pulled them out cause he was a sissy. my god man, do you like sending all your dollars to russia, saudi, iran, iraq and venezuela? do you like seeing your standard of living drop while those in the middle east are building ever bigger palaces? my god man, THINK.
scrooge: my own facts? i looked back on my responses and i never saw any comment by me about GDP numbers. perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? wrt security, oh yeah, we are much better off after the manufactured war in iraq. yeah, right. wrt socialism, what can be more socialistic than the bush administration's take over of the federal mortgage market, *publicly* traded bear stearns, and now the banking and financial sectors????? jesus, if a democrat had done that, you'd be wanting impeachment (or is that just for bj's?). what i would like to go back to, since you asked, is a functioning economy, a strong US dollar, and a stock market that somewhat resembles free enterprise and capitilism instead of using the middle class tax-payer to bail out the wall streeters, hedge fund managers, and ultra-rich that you guys seem to support so violently while your own net worth and standard of living are being deep-six'd by the same guys you support. hope mccain solves all your wishes, but just like bush, he will only make your situation worse. they are hypocrits, and radicals and there is nothing "conservative" about the bush republicans if you would just drop your ideology and look at the facts.
www.businessweek.com/m...
Trying to pin all your woes on W doesn't wash. Is it against your religion to win a war against homicidal thugs? Or even fight at all? It's the Middle East. They have oil there. al Qaeda wants it, to continue its avowed campaign of world domination, which would mean the end of you, me, all we hold dear, and all the progress since the Renaissance. Since 'compromise' with them means I must stop practicing my religion or die, I say whack 'em. Who ya gonna call?
we were alerted to this economic travail in the early 1990s--wheels falling off the economy due to debt/no savings/debasement of dollar.
pete peterson/rudman[nh, sen], tsongas[ma, sen] started Concord coalition with same message found in current movie["I.O.U.S.A.] and R. Perot, in his inept Texas style, explained our economic shortfall/gave warning. few have heeded messages; neither POL party has bothered to address the basics--too much spending/borrowing by all gov't levels. excessive personal spending/consumption, lack of saving by individuals. energy/energy policy is an important item, but there are others. try the impact of the "unified budget act"[circa 1970s, nixon et al] stealing SSA dollars, leaving only IOUs[$$trillions] which can't be paid to future baby boomers without massive tax increases or massive borrowing.
neither party is addressing or has solution to the financials/economy. the normal pandering and obfuscations are in play.
signed: GERRY MANDER
The "at least it's a change" has to rate as the most vacuous argument yet.
Equally lame is the attempt to sew McCain to Bush's hip. Wrong as he is on some things, fiscal restraint is one of the things McCain has been stellar about. remember, he voted against the 2001 tax cuts because there weren't spending cuts to compensate for them.
Last one wonders how anyone shilling for Obama can call for investing in energy companies. Your guy openly called for confiscating oil company profits to fund a giveaway to everyone, including those who don't pay taxes. How are companies who are going to have their profits confiscated good investments?
1) There were no other attacks on the US after 9/11. Like it or not, Homeland Security works. Al-Quaida attacks still occured in other parts of the world after 9/11; e.g. Spain and England.
2) Obama should thank the Repubilcians for setting the stage for him for being the first black presidental candiate. Bush 43 appointed Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice to higher and more important positions in the presidental cabinet than the Democrats ever did. Democrats like to think of themselves as the party of African-Americans, but it was a Republican (Abraham Lincoln) that ended slavery and another Republican (Dwight Eisenhower) that ended segragation.
scrooge: why are you hung up on GDP numbers and why are you saying i misquoted them when i never did. are you telling me the economy in the US is healthy and everything is OK because of some GDP numbers? if so, i am sure you also believe the inflation numbers the administration is publicizing as well as that iraq was responsible for 9-11. if that is the case, there is nothing i can do to straighten you out. also, you didn't have to tell me there is oil in the middle east, i knw that. i also know it is in russia and venezuela. i also know we are borrowing money from china to send our US dollars to these countries. bush has done nothing but accentuate this problem. that is why i am attempting to convey to you.
oldfolk: the US has 3% of the world's oil reserves and uses 25% of the world's oil. do the math.
fran: yes, i do remember the early 90's. as i recall, that was the aftermath of the first bush (and the S&L crisis and subsequent bailout by middle class taxpayers, see a pattern here??). i also remember the huge US deficit inherited by the clinton administration after 12 years of reagan/bush deficit spending. i also remember how clinton, in his first term, shut the government down and refused to back down until the budget was balanced. and he did it. and the US dollar strengthened, and the economy was good. yeah, i remember. i am not saying the democrats are the answer, there are many things i don't agree with (after all, i am, by the way, a REAL conservative republican). but, after bush's 8 years, and the subsequent economic fallout, it just baffles me how people supposedly schooled in economics can reward them by 4 years of mccain. it is baffling. i definitely agree that both parties (and the media) are ignoring what should be the #1 priority: a comprehensive, strategic, long-term energy policy.
Pearl: if you know where St. Bonaventure is, you are real close.
User234459: ahhh...i get a nice break. man, where have you been?? i need your support here...they are thrashing me! you have some *great* quotes:
Ron Paul is a conservative, George Bush is an ATM card (classic!)
thank you for THINKING.
oldtrdr: yes, you make a good point. somewhere back in my SA submissions i mentioned how it seemed that STO, TOT, and Eni were getting contracts by foreign governments which used to go to XOM, CVX, and COP. i opinied that there was a direct correlation to bush's ignorant foreign policy moves. i would lump putin's invasion of georgia as another response to idiot george's naive view of the world. anyhow, i agree with your post. that said, at a time when worldwide oil supply will not keep pace with worldwide oil demand, it seems wise to own a company that produces 4 million barrels a day (XOM), and companies that produce over 2 million barrels a day (COP, CVX), and the company that is the largest natural gas producer in the US (COP).
VintonCounty: sure, Congress has power. but the economic, foreign, domestic, and agenda is set by the commander-and-chief, which is why he is called the "executive" branch of office, and supposedly why he is privy to ALL intelligence information. bush used his office to pound the table for war in iraq. also, you forget most of the bush damage was done in his first 4 years, when the republicans owned BOTH houses of the Congress that you say has all the power. everything bush wanted, he got. and the US is stuck with the outcome. a weak dollar, a weak middle class, a weak economy, and a stock market that is going no-where (except down).
investor612: you have the choice to change your browser anytime you like. as far as mccain being on bush's hip, i would go so far as to say their DNA is exact now. mccain was AGAINST bush's idiotic tax policy, now he is for it. i could go on-and-on. mccain had to cave to the bush people to get his support. he has done so. the only difference between the two is mccain is a bigger war-monger than bush, and if he was in office, we'd probably be exchanging nuclear war-heads with russia at this point. windfall profits tax didn't work before, and they won't work now, and i have written that i am against them. if they are enacted (i doubt it), the oil companies will cut back E&P budgets, produce less oil, Congress will hollar, and then rescind them. as far as investing in energy goes, what other sector of the economy is left after 8 years of bush? financials? autos? consumer goods? the S&P500?? give me a break. there is nothing left but energy, gold, and a garden. get ready for the fallout from these fascists. it's gonna get real hard in the good-old-USA. meantime, all the uneducated soak up rush limbaugh like rush's veins soak up the heroin he injects daily.
longoil:
1) we could debate 9-11. bush's dad is in the carlyle group. building 7. i could go on and on, but i can tell it wouldn't go over good with this crowd. do you think the war in iraq has made the US more secure? do you think the US is more respected and reveered after iraq? just like grade school, the best way to keep from getting beat up is to have alot of friends. the US has none left, unless you count the british, which, bush's are blue-bloods and british subjects, so, no surprise there. the brits are using our militrary to steal the oil they always wanted. sobeit.
2) i sure hope you are not comparing george bush to abraham lincoln?? that said, your points on lincoln and eisenhower are true. but please, bush is not even in the same league with those guys, neither intellectually, personally, or in terms of accomplishments and REAL patriotism.
I grew up near Batavia
And speaking of TV, I heard Cramer's next book is going to be called, "Watch TV - cause there's nothing else to do."
Hope your not mad at me, Fitz.
I certainly did not mean to compare Bush to Lincoln, I only wanted to dispel the myth that the Democrats are the only ones promoting civil rights.
One last remark on 9/11. If Clinton actaully did something after the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the two 1998 US embassy attacks in Africa and the USS Cole attack in 2000, there might not have been a 9/11 attack. My concern is that Obama will be another Clinton in this regard.
Pearl: know that area well. i just had some friends go to Chautauqua for a week and they said the weather last week was perfect.
ThinkBig: thanks!
MarkMc: mad? heck no! i got a good laugh on your comment.
longoil: ok, i'm gonna open yet another pandora's box and tell you what i think of 9/11. first of all, i wish someone would explain to me why building 7 fell down, and why there wasn't an investigation into that. secondly, i want to know why bush was not impeached when he broke the airspace lockdown and flew his saudi arabian buddies out of the country. just to remind you, 9/11 was carried out by 17 saudi arabians and 2 egyptians (i.e. NO iraqis....). meantime, wall street traders viewing the twin towers on fire, said out loud, live on CNN, oh, this explains it. when asked "explains what?" they said it explained the exponential increase in the short positions in the airline stocks and S&P500 in the days leading up to 9/11. now, let's look at bush's response. on the saudi plane escape he ordered, he first DENIED the flight's existence. then, when the press (when we still had one) came up with the evidence of the flight, he finally admitted it did take place. wrt to the wall street issue, bush refused to have an investigation on who placed the trades. then, when he was finally shamed into it by the 9/11 victims' survivors, he appointed some cronies to run the investigation, but even they began to find out who was behind the trades, and guess who: the carlyle group. who's in the carlyle group? full of skull and bones members like his dad, kissinger, and the king of saudia arabia. of course when bush found this out, he STOPPED the investigation and kept the results from being published. now, can you say IMPEACHMENT. bush is a traitor, and either knew about 9/11 before it happened (i watched the video of him reading children's stories in FLA more than once...and noticed his "response"...). so, do i believe bush and the republicans are good for american security? hell no. look at their response to 9//11 - we go an attack iraq!? that is like after pearl harbour the US attacking brazil (which might not be too far-fetched since cheney really wants PBR's discoveries...). then, on top of all that, bush and cheney completely waste 8 years when we should have been developing non-oil energy policy. that is THE biggest threat to the US economy, equity markets, and way of life. so, NO, i think bush and his buddies have been a US security disaster. well fed monkeys could have done a better job of US security than bush and cheney.
Like usual I enjoy reading yours comments as much as reading your main articles. I am in full agreement with you on the special treatment Saudi Arabia has gotten by both Bushes.
Your bring up a very good point that I will expand on.
>>>bush and cheney completely waste 8 years when we should have been developing non-oil energy policy.
I would take this further and say every president since and including Reagan is guilty of sticking to an oil-centric course and totally avoiding embarking on the difficult and necessary alternative energy route. Look what happened to Jimmy Carter who actually tried to implement a serious energy policy.
I think we both agree that addressing the energy dilemma properly will address several other issues at the same time like climate change, national security, global famine, peace (resource wars) and the domestic economy.
I thinking everyone is placing too much hope that Barack Obama will implement a serious energy policy. His energy policy is fragmented and full of populist pander; corn ethanol subsidies, clean coal, opening the SPR reserves, windfall taxes and removal of E&P tax credits.
The problem is people are too focused on getting rid of Bush rather than holding both McCain and Obama accountable in delivering serious energy platforms.
The Saudi government agents were on the first flight out **AFTER** the air block was lifted -- literally the first flight, but none the less they were not given permission to take off during the block.
Its true that there were 17 Saudis among the 9/11 terrorists-- but you are rather Bush-like in assuming that this implicates ALL Saudis in the conspiracy. There were two Americans (and no others) involved in the Oklahoma bombings -- so I suppose you (and Bush) think we should suspect all Americans as a result? You are acting as much of a fascist as Bush
Its amazing that you think Bush is such an idiot -- but at the same time you attribute this omnipotence to him in implementing the biggest conspiracy of modern times. If anyone listens to your rants, Bush is responsible for every bad thing that ever happened, and Clinton did absolutely no wrong -- that is not economics, that is you making a fool of yourself.
We haven't had a perfect President that I know of. Bush certainly has an above average level of failings -- but you attributing super-human evil powers to him is ridiculous.
Further, your partisan rants, beyond discrediting you, do nothing to help anyone pick a good next president.
"Bush is an idiot", even if true, is not a reason to vote FOR anyone else, Obama or McCain.
You claim to be some sort of energy "expert". I am not sure you are an expert, but based on the opinions you voiced in earlier (less partisan) posts, you are against windfall profits taxes, you don't think opening the SPR will be anything beyond a short term fix, you don't think corn ethanol is an effective solution -- in short, you have expressed doubt on almost every single point of Obama's energy proposals...
Your foreign policy expertise is... to be polite... lacking. Your suggestion that all Saudis be indicted based on the crimes of 17 people is nothing short of racist. Don't lump all Saudis, or all Muslims, into a terrorist bucket. I have -- sorry had-- several Muslim friends who died in the World Trade Center, right along side Jewish, Christian, and Hindus. They were not terrorists, and shame on you for suggesting such.
Fitzman; You give credibility to the idea that "liberalism is a mental illness". That an otherwise brilliant fellow, such as yourself, can be so muddleheaded, bamboozled, and depraved. You should really stick to what you do so well on this site, and that is conducting a sane, civilized discussion of issues related to energy.
You seem to have the anger of a Michael Moore. Is he one of your heros? RL and heroin? What flavor koolaid do you drink?
It frightens and saddens me when polls seem to indicate 1/3 of the American people believe that 9/11 was a vast conspiricy.
I'm curious Fritz, do you also believe that AIDS was intentionally spread by the CIA? Or the crack cocaine epidemec?
You are absolutely right on regarding the dangers of not having an Energy policy. There is only one other threat that I consider more dangerous to our way of life and national security. Islamic fundamentalism. Like the Nazis and Soviets of yesteryear, these barbarians must be defeated. The"War on Terror" must succeed, and McCain must defeat Barak Hussein Obama.
Fitz: Why, in this horrible Republican-created mess of an economy, why would you suggest installing a person who wants to increase mightily the transfer of wealth from private sector(s) to government? Government produces nothing. Increasing taxes is a disincentive to creative work and the deployment of capital (otherwise called the economy, I think). Government (Dem & Rep) wastes our hard-earned cash on give-away entitlement programs that may be touchy-feely vote-getters, but are almost totally without oversight = big fraud-waste-abuse. Electing Obama would be gasoline on the fire! (I had to drag petroleum into this somehow.) I watch my dollars like a hawk. When was the last time anyone was able to carefully check out how Medicare or Medicaid is spending their 100's of millions? Those jokers pay for $1,000 flu shots, and pay bills for people who have been dead for a decade. Universal health care!! "If you think medical care is expensive now, wait until it is free." PJ O'Rourke
If I may paraphrase, If you think the economy sucks now, wait until Obama et al. 'fix' it. A major recession WOULD cut petroleum use, however, so that would be good in your book, right? By the way, an indicator of recession is shrinking oil consumption. Not seeing big evidence of that, are we?
Reagan/Bush 1 passed on a big deficit to Cinton, but for a very good reason. It was needed to bring down the Soviet empire. An excellent return on investment indeed. This in turn (now with the world at peace) allowed Clinton to bring down the deficit.
Then, Clinton's administration, in it's ineptness, did not recognize the threat from Al-Queda and missed many opportunities to get rid of the group. Because of this we had 9/11 and Bush 2 had to address our vulnerabilities. This cost a lot of money, billions of deficit money, for it does not increase nor produce any products -- mostly just security services.
Bush further expanded the deficit by going into Iraq without understanding the consequences of conquering a country. He compounded this with his policy of getting as many people to own a house. These two actions is responsible for much of the financial problems we find ourselves in. Yes he has an MBA, but remember, he got it by just getting by. Intellectually, he is a light weight - incapable of thinking through a subject. Hence, on the two ventures, he did not have a plan after conquering Iraq, and he did not add to his expanding housing ownership policy that only people who had sufficient income should be given a loan. He did understand the consequences of a lot of bills that got to his desk so he signed them all....until the stem cell issue, his first veto that had little economic impact. Most of what he signed had big economic impact one of which is the limited milage improvement on CAFE standards .... hence, we are now in trouble with the high gas prices. He (including many Republicans) could not understand the science of Global Warming, hence did not push really hard on nuclear energy.
On McCain. He is doing the minimum to what he needs to do to get elected without compromising his philosophy too much. Once in office, he can pretty much be the maverick he is.by nature. Lately, he has shown that when he sees a problem, he will address it quickly. He has started advocating for building 45 nuclear plants but should he become President he will be calling for 100 or more. In contrast, Obama wants to solve the waste problem first as if it will take only a year or two to solve it (solutions will take a little longer to be proven and accepted), or he is really against it but does not want to say it.
McCain will be working hard to accomplish is goals in 4 years. He is not saying it for he does not want to become a lameduck President. He will get serious election reform passed, get rid of earmarks and work hard on lowering the deficit to balance the budget. He will set an energy policy for the country.
"He did NOT understand the consequences of a lot of bills that got to his desk so he signed them all
BUT-- with an ideal energy plan/strategy[we'll accept your for sake of discussion], the country is still in economic abyss with no plan by either party to get out. the debt/ssa deficiency/current health costs/infrastructure repair and extensions are covered by either party.
NET NET--the Peterson issues in film I.O.U.S.A.[same as 1990s concord coalition warnings] remain unresoved/unaddressed by any politician. quite likely 'cause they have none.
CHALLENGE-- FITZMAN itemize each IOUSA issue and demonstrate how any party/politician has proposed way to fix. i desperately seek advice/counsel for the public good.
CAN YOU HELP THE COUNTRY'S CITIZENS????
last sentence-- "...are NOT covered...
To be energy independent, we need to Drill, Develop, and Discover, not just drill, drill, and drill.
DRILL anyplace known to contain oil or natural gas; my back yard, White House back yard, your back yard, or the back yard of the Kennedy compound. WE have enough coal and gas to provide our own energy, let us do it the clean way.
DISCOVER new areas for gas and oil and drill where there is thought to be the most. In years to come, new processes will allow drilling in what are now difficult places.
DEVELOP new forms of energy such as wind, geothermal, and solar. Large wind mills in the ocean off the east coast (out of sight of land) are now possible, but people say not on my coast. The coast belongs to all of us; it is the coast of our country. Use the wind corridor we have and develop a distribution system.
I was in the securiy business and the Russians are using oil as a weapon and they make me fear the future. I am funding my retirement with dividends, can not wait to see what I am dealt next with new taxes.
Aug 28 03:25 PM
Being the capitalist I am and many of you are, if Russia buying a portion of our 300 year coal supply for export to their steel industry doesn't get your attention and of all the other concerned US resource folks including those that have in-the-ground assets (oil, NG, coal) which sooner or later will become assets for-sale (being we're all capitalists), it seems to me we had better start working a LOT HARDER developing and providing many alternatives for our lifestyle; because if we don't deplete our natural assets, someone else will.
Report abuse
nakedjaybird
Aug 28 03:32 PM
And with the someone else's help, DEPLETION COMES SOONER.
Report abuse
nakedjaybird
Aug 28 03:33 PM
AND ALL US U.S. CAPITALISTS WILL BE RICHER; WOO-HOO!!!!
Report abuse
nakedjaybird
Aug 28 03:34 PM
SOONER; WOO-HOO, WOO-HOO!!
seekingalpha.com/artic...
and, yes, i must admit that i want to get rid of bush in the worst way. electing mccain does not do this. we just continue on the same path, with perhaps even more militantism than before (i didn't think that was possible, but as i said before, after reading mccain's writings, i am sure we'd be in a war with russia right now were he CIC.)
gramps2: yeah, right. building 7 feel because of "fires". independent investigations by your own government said if building 7 collapsed as it did because of "fires" it would be the first building of its design type in the history of the planet to fall due to fire. ridiculous. wrt the saudi airlift, i can only conclude that you agree it was the right thing to do. ridiculous. what about lying about it? was that also the right thing to do? what about trying to cover up the flight, i guess that was the right move as well. ridiculous. i NEVER said ALL saudi's were guilty of being behind 9-11 - those are your words. what i said was, and you can ask the survivors of the 9-11 victims if they agree with either you or me (i can tell you already, they agree with me), to fly saudi arabians out of florida, when they may have been in contact with the 9-11 saudi conspirators when they were in florida, prior to an investigation (assuming you could even HAVE a real investigation with bush in office) was a criminal offence on bush's part. by the way, who profited more than anyone else with the rise in oil under bush? the saudis. or, perhaps russia, either way, you and i lose. "it is amazing that i think bush is such an idiot"? you say. helloooooo, i am not the only one gramps. the majority of the world knows it. with respect to rants, you can do it but i can't? are you not ranting back? what i am trying to do is save our economy before 4 more years of insane economic policies deep-six the middle class (what's left of us...) forever."Bush is an idiot" is a reason NOT to vote for mccain, because mccain has morphed himself into mini-georgie.
i never claimed to be an energy expert (that's you talking for me, again). what i did propose was an energy policy that i believe is superior to what we have now, which is no comprehensive policy at all, and is nothing but an oil centric ideology that is strenthening russia and saudi and iran and iraq as quickly as it is weakening us. wake up gramps.
my foreign policy is lacking huh? well, condi is supposed to be a russian expert from stanford right? well, look what backing the puppet in georgia got us? look what star wars in poland got us. russia is the biggest oil exporter in the world, and we did our best to piss them off. brilliant. now all we can do is lob verbal threats while putin just laughs at how stupid georgie was when he "looked into his eyes". please. i might not be the most brilliant foreign policy expert, but i know idiocy when i see it. and bush foreign policy has been a complete and unmitigated disaster in every way possible.
again, you say i suggested that ALL saudis been indicted after 9-11. your words gramps. if you are going to debate me, please, at least debate me on what i said, not what you wanted or imagined me to have said.
User93017: thanks for all the insults. i did note, however, that you neglected to debate me on any specifics. try again sometime - that was a pathetic post and will stay on here forever to document your debating skills as nil.
scrooge: wrt transfer of wealth, you seem to be oblivious to the transfers that have taken place under bush the last 8 years. let me help you out:
1) the transfer of wealth from middle class taxpayers to the wall streeters, bankers, iraqi "contractors", katrina "suppliers", and many other well connected bushites from your US Treasury, doubling the entire fiscal debt of the US in just two terms.
2) the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the planet (i am stealing this from boone pickens) as US citizens send their dollars to saudi, russia, iran, iraq, and venezuela.
if you *really* watch your dollars like a "hawk", debate 1 and 2. please, spare me the ideological criticism of democrat s[ending, i heard the same thing before clinton balanced the budget after the 1st bush's deficit spending. i also note how much stronger the US dollar was under clinton than under bush. but i suppose that isn't important either.
wrt gasoline consumption, yes, we are seeing gasoline consumption decline. look at the gov. numbers on their website for the details. every economist worth his salt knows we are in a recession. but, like the inflation numbers and everything else the bush administration publishes, they won't admit a recession until the next president takes office.
igorisky: bs. russia fell because of an economic system and leadership that couldn't compete with US military spending since the end of WW2. reagan/bush just happened to be in office when it finally collapsed. note how good this latest bush is handling russia...pushing up the price of oil 500% during bush's term has done nothing but enrich russia (as well as saudi, iran, iraq). but for some reason, no bush supporters ever debate this fact...considering it is currently the most important fact, that is a rather large omission from the debate.
further, i don't need a bush supporter to tell me what a disaster iraq has been, i understand. thanks anyway. mccain is mini-bush, i don't buy your optimism. anyone who thinks we can continue the bush tax policy that is crucifying the American middle class has got to have a bolt loose. besides, mccain will get us in a war with every country that even looks at us sideways. read his book.
fran: wow, thanks, whew...i get to rest my fingers. i agree that the country still has alot of economic issues, but i can only focus on what i feel is the biggest: energy. if we don't solve the energy problem, nothing else will matter: we're completely hosed. i appreciate your challenge, but i must decline. currently, i am doing all i can to get senators, presidential candidates, and financial media to publicize and adopt a comprehensive energy policy along the lines of the one i have developed, or, at least use it as a starting point for debate. this is a full-time job as the media and politicians block me every chance they get.
hwood007: i don't remember ever recommending we become like any country in Europe, although i have mentioned france's nuclear effort, germany's wind effort, and electric light rail all over the continent of europe and japan. i also wouldnt mind us having a health plan similar to the scandinavian countries. agree on drilling, but agree even more on alternatives of wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal. agree even more on alternatives to the gasoline powered internal combustion engine and on the infrastructure needed to refuel them. wrt dividends, i don't understand the republican stance of no tax increases on the wealthy: it ends up we have a US dollar that depreciates 40% and inflation that is probably close to 6-7%. now, does saving an extra 2-5% on your cap gains or dividend taxes make up for the ~45% hit you've taken on the dollar and inflation. hell no it doesnt. it's just more republican hypocrisy and double-speak. they know everybody likes the sound of "cut taxes". i wish people would just wake up and THINK.
I read your June 9 Obama article, great stuff !!!
I followed the energy platforms of all candidates from the beginning and it is only recently that the platforms of Obama and McCain have improved, but they still are very far from perfect.
Six months ago:
1) Huckabee had a one paragraph of very weak energy policies
2) McCain had one paragraph full of environmental cliches and absolutely nothing on energy. Very scary.
3) Obama had a scattered array of populist catch phrases on energy.
4) Clinton, surprising had the best platform of the lot (but far from comprehensive). If fact, it appears that Obama's current platform has lifted many of the good points from her platform.
It is only in the light of $4.00 gas that the energy platforms have been taken more seriously.
1) The Saudi flight took off from Dulles airport outside Washington DC. Florida is the home of Central Command (the military authority that includes the middle east) -- that airspace did not open for several hours. The only aircraft that took off in Florida were airforce jets and Airforce One (Bush was in Tampa/St Pete at the time of the attacks and later flew to a secure bunker in the midwest). No Saudi, or any other civilian planes, took off from Florida. You are dead wrong on this.
Second, if you believe in American values (unlike Bush), you must believe innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (not a witch hunt) and you must believe in probable cause. Bush (like you) does not place any importance in civil liberties.
After years of investigation, by both political parties, no one has found any evidence to link Saudi officials to the 9/11 hijackers. I challenge you to explain why Obama would keep silent on this if there was even a shred of evidence. Unlike you, Obama hasn't shouted his mouth off with irrational conspiracy theories. That's why some people respect Obama, and its why you have received so much criticism on this post.
Every concrete and every half brained lead on the hijackers has been followed. The 9/11 Commission had zero hesitation to say Bush's link between al-qaeda and Iraq was nonsense. They tracked Mohamed Atta all over Germany, France and Spain -- but they never found a link to Saudi Arabia.
Third, yes fire did cause both main WTC towers and #7 to collapse. And yes, you are correct that this is the first time in history a building collapsed from fire. It is also the first time two airplanes loaded with thousands of gallons of jet fuel crashed into buildings.
The study was conducted by the NY city fire department (and other city agencies). I am quite sure the NYFD knows more about fire codes than you.
I work on Wall Street, which is why I lost so many friends in the WTC attacks. There were rumors of people buying lots of puts on airline stocks -- but the rumors were never substantiated. Even if there was some vast conspiracy to keep profits at Carlyle group secret -- you are missing a critical element. Someone else had to sell those puts (DUH!!!). So name the companies that suffered huge losses from selling these puts you imagined?
I really don't want to ask the 9/11 victim's families. I really feel sorry for their loss -- but its a known psychological response FOR THEM to want to deny their loved one's death was nothing but wrong place wrong time. They have a very understandable reason to see conspiracies -- its part of the natural coping process. You, on the other hand, should not be so irrational.
None of your warped conspiracy theories of Bush/CIA and whomever hold together. For one, Washington is terrible at keeping any secrets. We all know way too much about Bill Clinton's sex habits because even the Oval office isn't secure. It didn't keep Clinton's secrets, it didn't keep Nixon's secrets, and it hasn't been able to keep any of Bush's either.
The CIA has both republican AND democrat employees. So does almost every other government agency (except obviously the White House)... So why are all these Democrats helping to keep Bush's secrets? Why are Hilary and Obama and Nancy Pelosi and every other Democratic congress member helping to cover up why building #7 fell? Are the Democrats part of your conspiracy too?
Its a simple answer Fitz: the conspiracies are all in your head. Its not that I think Bush is ethical -- I think the opposite. Its just that he isn't that smart.
As I explained in detail in my last post: it makes no difference if the entire world hates George Bush as much as you do... that is not a logical reason for voting for McCain or Obama.
Your blind hatred for Bush is making you write some really bizarre things
if you don't think it's strange that bush's #1 priority after the 9-11 attacks was to fly saudi arabians out of the country, well, so what.
gramps - i swear if you don't stop putting words in my mouth and debate what i actually WRITE instead of what you think i wrote, i am gonna come over and pull all the grey hairs off your chest one at a time.
ok, so i give up, you guys have all convinced me with your excellent debating skills:
bush has been a great president!
bush is not responsible for the weak US dollar or weak US economy.
bush is not responsible for the strengthening of russia & the middle east.
bush is not responsible for the 500% increase in the price of oil.
bush is not responsible for doubling the debt during just 8 years.
bush is a foreign policy expert.
bush has strengthened the middle class.
bush's tax policies are fair and it makes sense to increase the wealth of the uber-wealthy because then it trickles down to the middle class.
bush has left the US much stronger than when he came into office.
the US stock and bond markets are in great shape.
the financial system is in great shape.
the feds aren't taking over the financial system
inflation is not an issue
and lastly, bush's energy policy has been *great* for the country.
you guys are right! there is no need for change! everything is perfect, and bush gets all the credit for the great shape of the US today.
oh, and i love and believe everything rush limbaugh and larry kudlow say. everything is great. i can't wait to see what wonderful things mccain has in store for us. you guys convinced me. bush is great.
<fingers crossed>
I agree with all your claims against Bush, except
>>>> bush is responsible for the 500% increase in the price of oil.
1) With oil priced in Euros, the price of oil still went up 300% since 2002. The weak US dollar accounts for only one third of the current high oil prices.
2) Yes, Bush's highly misguided invasion of Iraq did take 4% of the world's supply off the market in 2003 and turned the US surplus when he took office into the current +1 trillion debt. But, the insatiable of appetite of BRIC + ME nations for oil would still be growing at double digits rates, regardless if the Iraq invasion never took place. Two things would have happened, if Iraq was never invaded in 2003
a) $140 oil would have occurred in 2010-11 instead of 2008
b) With cheap gasoline still available today the energy presidential platforms of Obama and McCain would be totally void of any energy alternative policies and we would all be in a much deeper hole in 2015. At least everyone is now sensitized to Peak Oil. We would have never heard of Obama talking about of 150 billion investment in alternative energy or McCain offering 300 million prize for a super battery.
Ironically, in serendipitous (a la Forrest Gump) way, Bush (despite all his misguided policies) triggered the start of a serious discussion of alternative energy. What will actually be done in January 2009 is another story.
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
i often note what a hypocrit bush is. consider this: notice how everytime he rationalized filling the strategic petroleum reserve, he talked about how important oil is to the economy, how the US could not survive without it, and how important it is that we have reserves in times of crisis. then, he goes right out and fights for policies to keep us addicted to the foreign oil of his buddies in saudi arabia while he is telling us out of the other side of his mouth how important it is we get off it. this is a perfect example of bush hypocrisy. say one thing, and do the total exact opposite. just like spending. just like security. just like "freedom". of course i could go on and on and on (and i usually do).
Wow, he managed to find someone to appeal to everyone (from a political point of view)
1) A woman running mate will certainly siphon off many disenchanted Hillary supporters from the Obama’s camp. I’ll bet you McCain did not know who he was going to choose for VP until the Joe Biden announcement.
2) She an evangelical, so his got the ultra-right side of the Republican party back on his side.
3) She from Alaska and is pro drilling, so ANWR is a step closer. So much for his alternative energy stance. I think this alone point confirms that McCain is back in the Bush camp as far as energy policy goes.
If I was Obama, I would really be worried now. I think McCain has just shrunk Obama’s 3 point lead in the polls to zero. We’ll at least Obama can refute the inexperienced line (Palin is only 44 yrs old herself) and the fact she’s under investigation by her own legislature provides another target for the Obama camp.
Obama has very few concrete plans of what he will do -- its mostly a bunch of hot air and buzz words about "hope". Hope is not a plan. 143 days in Congress is not enough time to establish anything of a track record -- which is why the DNC convention had to be filled with so much fluff. There is no substance to Obama, and very little to argue about pro or con. His energy proposals (windfall taxes, corn ethanol, etc) have been quite thoroughly discussed and discredited by you in earlier posts.
McCain has a few (very few) concrete plans -- most of which don't make sense to me. His nuclear energy proposal is at least a start, but he neglects to explain what the country will do with the nuclear waste produced. Last I checked, Yuccatan Mountain storage in Nevada was still on permanent hold (it was supposed to be ready for use sometime in the early 1980s?). For 30yrs, people have argued whether Yucca will leak radiation or not (I don't know the answer). If McCain wants lots more nuclear power plants, he needs to have a "complete" solution, including what to do with the spent rods. I haven't heard anything. McCain has made a number of statements that suggest (but do not prove) he would like to attack Iran over nuclear weapons -- besides being a foolish idea, its not obvious that the military has the logistical / resource capability to fight a third simultaneous war. They seem pretty stretched with the two they already have. Iraq is likely to take at least 2-3 years to wind down, according to both military leaders and the recent proposal from the Iraqi government. Despite the news media's obsession with Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse, not better.
McCain's big "selling point", in my eyes, is that he is from the opposite political party as the one likely to control Congress. Since we can't get a qualified leader, I prefer gridlock. That should NOT be confused with an endorsement of McCain.
Regardless of who wins, medicare becomes cash flow negative sometime in early 2009. The budget deficit is chronic. Higher taxes (on rich or poor) will not help a fragile economy. Housing might bottom depending on which expert you ask, but no one is predicting a rapid recovery. Plans from both candidates to increase spending conflict with the fiscal reality the winner will face on day one. And historically, almost every problem the country has faced has been solved by the private sector -- even if some government bureaucracy later took credit. Big government might work in other countries, but it hasn't worked in the U.S.
Even if you don't agree with my political views on the two candidates (and I am guessing you don't) -- irrational hysteria over Bush's failings is not a reason to vote for either candidate. And since your blog has historically been a discussion of energy issues (that's why I tune in anyways), none of us expected to read a heavily partisan rant
Bin Laden has a degree in civil engineering but never practiced as one.
I think you are giving these 9/11 terrorist fanatics too much credit.
Yes, they took advantage of flaws in airport security to sneak in box cutters. And the airlines should have gotten suspicious when these guys paid for one way tickets in first class with cash.
The terrorists expected fanastic explosions and the deaths of all the passengers, but never expected the buildings to collapse as mentioned in one of Bin Laden's communique shortly after 9/11. He said "the collapse of buildings was much more than he could have prayed for."
I remembered watching some documentaries where the engineers that designed the towers in the 1960's said they designed the buildings to take head-on impacts of Boeing 707s (the largest planes at the time.) They did not anticipate the scenario of larger planes (i.e. Boeing 757s) built 30 years crashing into the towers. I doubt very much Bin Laden knew this tid-bit of information.
i appreciate response and your position. may your selected mission be a success. i know the intellectual, political, and ecological/environment... hurdles involved with your subject. i could not, however, resist the opportunity offered by all commentary about "THE" problem and
"THE" solutions--as though it is not caused by us all[electorate and electeds over the past years[pick your own duration]].
the opportunity offered by my challenge has been selected by few[none?] over the past20 years.
ever hopeful, enjoy the weekend.
You mentioned a while back ago your frustration after you sent your energy plan to the Obama and McCain camps, only to receive responses back soliciting campaign contributions.
Perhaps, you should try an indirect approach. There is a Republican congressman from Maryland called Roscoe Bartlett that is one of the few US politicans that acknowledges the reality of Peak Oil and the need to do something about it now. He has done several presentations in the house to educate his fellow congressman. I think it would be worth a few moments of your time to send him your energy plan. I am sure he would appreciate ideas for concrete action to deal with Peak Oil and the related issues (like climate change, resource wars, domestic economy and global famine).
His website is: bartlett.house.gov/
I would bet bin Laden improvisioned the video with the drawings of the WTC after the fact to further terrorize people with his supposed know-how. Everything these Al Quaeda guys have done so far shows what a bunch of amateurs they are: e.g. the shoelace bomber and the liquid and gel bombers. I doubt very much they would have done a structural analysis of the WTC, calculated the explosive force of 20000 gallons of kerosine and figure out the optimal point to hit the buildings in order to collapse them.
I agree with you on the potential of jet fuel. In liquid state this stuff is as safe as kerosine in a lamp. However, when jet fuel is vaporized (i.e. after a 600 mph) impact, it is capable of incredible explosive force and high temperatures enough to melt I-bars.
What really worries me is if these terrorists get better funded by the Saudi Arabians et al., they will have access to more dangerous weaponry like Surface-to-Missles and nuclear technology. This is why I believe it is important to move to alternative energy technology now, not just to save a few cents on motor fuel, but to deprive the principal funders of terrorism.
Thank you.
1) one of the billionaires benefitting from bush's tax policies
2) one of the well connected benefitting from bush's "bailouts"
3) smart enough to have removed all your money from US stock and bond markets.
regardless, congratulations. you are a member of the "chosen few". btw, it doesn't bother me at all that you aren't reading my "crap". it's all over your ideological head anyhow.