A Liberal Marines Progressive Perspective

Marines are defenders of the republic and the Constitution. That is our oath, that is our purpose, that is our calling. Many are Democrats. This is the journal of one such Marine. This leatherneck's progressive perspective is as follows...

My Photo
Name:
Location: Southwest, United States

U.S. Marine,0300 MOS,eight years in,honorably discharged,college-educated. To all the damned trolls, you better believe there are liberal Marines. Read "War Is A Racket" by 2-time Medal of Honor recipient Maj.Gen.S.D.Butler, plus Lewis B. Puller, Jr.'s "Fortunate Son" and maybe then you'll understand. Semper Fi!

Play M.L.1775 Theme Song

Thursday, April 21, 2005


Memo to the Bushites: You Can Dig and Dig...the Oil is Going, Going, Gone, or, NASCAR and the SUV Are Already in the MuseumPosted by Hello
Morning to all aboard. The sun is shining, the clouds have dissipated and all and all it looks like a beautiful day here in the American Southwest. Whoops, it's getting cloudy again. Todays topic is the beginning of the end of the oil era. Let me jump right into this. I just finished reading 'The End of Oil' by Paul Roberts (http://www.blackstarreview.com/rev-0153.html) a couple of days ago. Powerful book, just a powerful expose into the realities of the present energy situation...recommend it to everyone out there. The book really sheds light on what is going on when it comes to America's dependance on petroleum and the consequences of that dependence, in terms of the national security, as well as, the geophysical implications and consequences. I see in todays news the House ok'd the drilling in ANWR, or , the Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge (http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/6403200p-6282036c.html). I can tell you that the current Administrations whole approach to our energy problem (especially in regard to our unholy alliance with, and dependence on, foreign oil) is all wrong. With the current Administation, the focus seems to be on denying the hard realities of our "oil-addicted" situation (and it is an addiction, a socio-economic addiction on a national scale...just like crack cocaine to a crackhead. You know that's the truth, so why not admit it). Look, the Bushites/neocons can dig and dig and drill and drill until they are blue in the face, the fact remains that petroleum is a very finite source of energy (that takes millions of years to create/ferment and once it's gone...it's gone) and that we have painted ourselves into a corner by not seriously investigating and researching the benefits and economic relevance of alternative fuels. This foolhardy policy has done nothing but guaranteed that we, as an American nation, will have serious complications down the road in terms of our addiction to foreign oil. Here's one to try on, just as an example: say (for instance) Crown Prince Abdullah, the current ruler of the House of Saud/Saudi Arabia (his half-brother, King Fahd, is the actual head of government/state but Fahd has been so ill over the past several years that Abdullah is running the show, http://www.meib.org/articles/0401_saudd.htm ) falls ill and there is a power struggle within the Kingdom? There's a better than good chance oil production will be slowed down considerably (if not halted all together...although being halted all together is probably not likely). That'll put a huge crimp on just about everyone around the world (i.e., people, makets, economies, etc.), but especially here in the United States. The political ramifications domestically will be off the charts (I refer you to the last few scenes of 'Three Days of the Condor' when Cliff Robertson's character is explaining to Robert Redford's character why the rogue element within the organization did what it did...very illuminating and not at all unfeasible, especially now). The point that I'm trying to make is, if a situation like that occurs (and it could, at any moment), the United States will more than likely invade Saudi Arabia to stabilize the situation and secure the oil fields (remember: the United States is like a crackhead when it comes to oil...it's got to have it...to quote Admiral Farragut: damn the torpedoes full steam ahead). Historical note: the only reason (and I mean the ONLY reason) the United States didn't invade Saudi Arabia during the 1974 Arab oil embargo, was because the Soviet Union loomed on the horizon and the Soviets would have certainly countered any American graba** attempt at securing Arabia (and her oil wealth) militarily. Ok, but the Soviets are no longer a real factor anymore; in other words, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) is no longer a military obstacle of any serious consequence in the region (or anywhere outside of it's own borders/region, for that matter) and thus is not a viable impediment to such an effort if such an effort was so authorized (http://www.irmep.org/essays/ksa.htm). And (as Paul Roberts points out in his book), in this post 9/11 world, there is no way the U.S. would allow Osama Bin Laden sympathizers to have their hands on the world's premier oil spigot (remember: Bin Laden is a Saudi and the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/23/saudi.fbi.911/. Of course, you tend to forgive alot when you're a crackhead, just as long as you can get a fix). The United States invasion of Saudi Arabia would go over real big in the Arab world and you don't need me to spell out what I'm talking about...the United States would be jumping "out of the frying pan(Iraq) and into the fire (Saudi Arabia: HQ of Islam)". But, that's the kind of jam we're in now because we have an Administration made up of ex-oil barons and ex-oil company executives (i.e., Bush II, Cheney, Rice, Don Evans, etc., etc. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm) that refuse to face the reality of the situation and can only think to dig and drill their way out of the energy mess we're in. But, digging and drilling for more oil is NOT the answer. In fact, in the case of ANWR, if they find anything of any real significance (and that's a big IF), the Arctic drilling will make little (if any) difference. As author Paul Roberts points out in the book, 'The End of Oil' (pg.299):

"...in at best ten years time, ANWR could boost American production by 600,000 barrels a day. As Joseph Romm, the former Clinton energy official, told me you open up ANWR and the only difference is that by 2020 we're importing 62% of our oil instead of 64%..." .

See, this is what I'm talking about. The current Administration simply lacks the intelligence (IQ/brainpower), vision and imagination that is desperately needed to get the United States out of the energy jam that we are in. It begs the question: can the country survive the ignorance and mediocrity that characterizes the current Administration? Where's the vision and the courage? *Sigh* This country so badly needs a progressive Administration in the near future, to somehow turn our ship-of-state around and move us into the right direction. However, in the meantime, as long as we depend on oil, there can be no "energy independence" (real or imagined). It is truly time for a long-term vision when it comes to our Pavolian-like dependence on "black gold" and to counter the serious implications that dependency has on us in terms of our national security and overall well-being as a nation. This is really getting ridiculous...the price of a barrel of crude oil is around $54 a barrel and this is just the beginning (http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/19/markets/oil.reut/?cnn=yes). The price per barrel is destined (guaranteed) to increase over time. Oh yes, the Saudi's and OPEC will increase production (when warranted) to lower the price (you better believe it, and you know the Bush Administration has got those OPEC fellas on speed-dial everytime the price goes up, telling them to increase production), but that's just a temporary fix, a temporary stop-gap. The bottom line is that oil is dimminishing as oil demand is increasing. Doesn't take an Adam Smith to understand what that basic economic tenet means...it means the price, overall, is going to continue to rise. A DIRECT consequence of the oil price increase is that the price of gas at the pump is on the rise...around $2.17-$2.21 a gallon (http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/). In fact, two friends of mine (both owners of Toyotas, like myself) told me a couple of weeks ago that it cost them around $30.00 to fill up. Sidenote: no disrespect, but to all those folks out there (not many, but a few I'm sure) saying I should buy and drive American, let me say this...when American car makers start paying attention (and I mean REALLY pay attention) to fuel-efficiency, then I'll start buying American cars. With our current energy policy bankrupt, our continued and obscene dependency on oil as our main transportation fuel (Middle East oil for the most part) and no real vision coming out of the White House...my only advice concerning our current energy status is to grab your socks and hose and pull...this is just the beginning, so we better get used to that harsh reality. Semper Fidelis

1 Comments:

Blogger DBK said...

You are quite right. I do harbor a hope that the technology to fix the mess has already been developed and is being sat upon until the last drop of oil gets drained. I have my reasons for believing that a certain large corporation in the east has already developed the room temperature super-conductor, since when it is developed, it will be ceramic and that is right up their alley. I'm halfway, absed on just the suspicion, to betraying my capitalist roots and investing some portion of my IRA in them.

But I recall a great American who actually tried to do something about this problem twenty-five years ago when it was still possible to do something. That was Jimmy Carter, whom wingers delight in dissing, but who actually tried to be proactive about the problems facng the country. The unfortunate fact is that in came Reagan, and all the Republicans have done since then is try their damndest to make the rich richer. They have succeeded.

8:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home