The world can certainly do better than this. Here's why.

Wednesday, April 27


President G.W. Bush addressed the Small Business Administration on Wednesday regarding the rising costs of energy, a concern for any business owner. His remarks can be found at:

http://www.sba.gov/expo/ (click picture)


The presidential admission that the U.S. must not rely on foreign sources of energy is no new thing. The crises of the 1970s are a signpost of this. However, the areas highlighted by the President are of some degree of concern. Whereas Bush could have placed renewable and sustainable resources at the top of this speech, he, instead, left them toward last preferring to espose the virtues of nuclear and, amazingly, coal (!) power. His belief in technology distorts reality in denial of the notion of sustainable development.

From the outset of his remarks, the President defines America as the capitalist paradise, "an evironment in which peoplee can dream big dreams and in which people are willing to risk capital." This reeks of the same dogmatic imperialism that caused America to revolt in the first place. Hinging the hopes of any free American on the willingness of the elite to invest dollars in an idea or product is no different than hinging the future of indigenous people on the spread of the word of God; or the alleigance of colonial inhabitants on the paternalistic whim of imperial rule. It imposes a system upon a population, forcing them to participate. The American vision of free-market economy is designed such that the rich make all of the decisions.

The capacity for America to continue the "American way" and its march for freedom and democracy for all is fuelled by its reliance upon oil. Consumption of this non-renewable and rapidly diminishing resoruce has outpaced America's production of it. Thus, America must look to external sources for this commodity. International agreements and governmental interests monitor the trade of commidities, but, it is large corporations and fat-cat industrialists that control it. The consumption of energy resources in America is characterized by the Bush as "a growing dependence on foreign sources[.]" Ignoring that Americans consume more resoruces per capita than any other in the world, a critical understanding in the construct of a global energy model, Bush proposes several means for America to continue operating as it does.

An admission that energetic consumption has exceeded the capacity of the nation to fuel itself would have been refreshing and logical. Politically, however, this is an admission of weakness. "Over the past decade our energy consumption has increased by more than 12 percent, while our domestic production has increased by less that one-half of 1 percent." This wide disparity between production and consumption should equate, in the minds of thinking American people, to the whole reason for the increase in energy prices. The "growing economy" is cited as the cause, an economy which is the foothold of capitalism. To slow or halt the progress of economy is capitalist suicide. On the other hand, unchecked economic growth drives the division and distinction between rich and poor, consumes more resources faster, culminating in the consumption of all non-renewable resource. Keeping this in mind, consumption of renewable resources that outpaces our ability to replace them is tantamount to plunder.

Outlining his strategy to approach rising energy costs for Americans, Bush states that "nuclear power is one of the safest, cleanest resources of power in the world, and we need more of it here in America." To balance this with his foreign policy, America seeks to remove from existence the nuclear power plants in "evil" nations such as Iran and North Korea. The former and "evil" theocracy, and a mirror for the theocratic ideals of the new, evangelical Christian initiatives of America. The latter, a destitute and starved nation under the thumb of an under-educated despot; a mirror for America's malnourished, ignorant, and neglected democratic majority.

The friend-enemy distinction is a floating one, tailored to meet the needs of the administration at that time. If Canada, or France, or Germany is someday redefined as an emeny, will the nuclear reactors in these countries be characterized as an "imminent threat [?]" Really, the mandate is to ensure the supremacy of America on all "fronts," economic, political, social, and military. The carrying capacity of a nation, or an individual, is in its/his/her ability to support it-/him-/herself. There is weakness without sufficiency, want for energy is such a weakness that the President must solve for his people.

Answers to the energy question abound for the GOP. Bush furthermore proposes to drill for oil and natural gas in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve, the coal (!) research initiative, liquefied natural gas, and hydrogen fuel cell resesarch as answers to support massive energy consumption by Americans. These initiatives either destroy the environment further, or are beyond the current scope of current technology. Drilling in the ANWR, while the President proposes minimal environmental impact, would require the serach for and transportation of any found resource. The impact of industrializing a wildlife preserve, to any degree, would contravene the purpose of that wildlife preserve.

The dreams of clean coal energy proposed by the clean coal initiative have not been realized. Investment in such research, mandated by the President, commands billions of dollars. Investors would require a return on this huge investment in one form or another. Furthermore, the assertion that the volume of coal currently found in the United States would produce energy for the next 250 years is, in and of itself, the problem. Coal, too, is a finite resource and would only put off until tomorrow the problems of today.

The energy required to introduce supercooled (liquefied) natural gas may exceed the utility of supercooling it in the first place. The energy required to seek out, extract, transport, cool, and distribute the resource may outweigh the energy produced by it. Liquified natural gas, another finite resource, is no more a solution to the energy crisis than oil is currently.

Briefly touching on hydrogen as a resource, the President stopped short of introducing the full potential that hydrogen presents as for the fuel of the future. His approach was posited as an offshoot of the coal reseach initiative, “mining” hydrogen from coal and utilising it as fuel. Certainly, given time and inquiry, human ingenuity could develop a means to harvest the most abundant, naturally-occurring element in the universe from a source other than coal. The positive aspect to hydrogen fuel was, however, underscorred by the President. The only by-product of hydrogen consumption is water. The challenge faced by those who search for a feasible hydrogen-fuel solution is its volatility, making it difficult and dangerous to transport.

A “final solution” to the energy crisis, from the perspective of an economist or capitalist, would constitute the end of commerce and capitalism. The last thing that these individuals want to do is to provide the planet with an inexpensive and abundant energy resource.

Briefly, the President touches upon ethanol and other biofuels, and wind energy as reasonable alternatives as well. Emphasis is not placed upon either of these resources as they do not generate the capital that is so exemplary of the American way, nor do they foster subcategories of capitalist endeavour to be explioted, nor are they finite resource that will fade and be supplanted by the next best thing. In fact, President Bush completes his speech without mentioning them, or anything, as sustainable. The word “sustain” does not appear anywhere in his speech.

Audacity to sugguest that other nations, specifically developing Asian nations, must follow suit reducing their exterior energy consumption or seeking out the means to become self-sufficient. America, having access to all of the world’s resources, cannot develop for themselves or anyone else. the means to be energetically self-sufficient. Yet, the American President places upon underdevelopped, non G8 nations, the onus of creating sustainable national energy programs. This, a political endeavour to wean smaller nations from the teat of the international energy supply.

And, finally, should the American President, himself capitalizing on the increase in oil prices, really be the one to make statements that would only injure his economic position? It is the height of hypocrisy. The interests of the American President are clearly at odds with the interests of the people he represents. The path he chooses for the future of a nation must represent the best interests not only of the electorate, but those of all people who are affected by decisions made in Washington D.C..

The march of freedom, making the world a better place for American interests veils the underlying directives of this enterprise. The global supremacy of America, its ideals, values, and culture; securing the historic position of America as the brightest light amid the dark oceans and contients of the globe. The lantern of Liberty island yet burns. If there is to be only one form of freedom in this world, it'd better be American.

Thursday, April 21

Bottom Line

mmm... 'kay.

Stop the Drug War against Weed (in effect decriminalizing weed)
Redefine "Drug" to include: Alcohol, Refined Sugar and Nicotine
Healthier population, $600 Billion Dollars saved for a generation
Functioning Social Security System, Functioning Universal Health
$30 in the pocket of every American, every year, forever.

What would you do with $600 Billion Dollars? Don't think you can smoke it all...

Sunday, April 17


Making a killing vs. making a living, which would you rather?

Expanse vs. expense. What are the things that we must endure to subsist?

Economy supercedes all. Nothing is not governed by it, the almighty dollar.
- "Quality of life"
- War and war machines
- Possible futures
- Socioeconomic status

Mankind is forced into a life and death struggle against all other men when mankind could, instead, find a means to be universall co-operative. Nationalism, religion and ideals of self-interest sub-divided grroupings and populations of humans from accepting the possibility of universal co-operation. The 'othering' process is that which causes people to, not only declare, but also reinforce their individuality amid the mob that is any grouping of people. Races, social groups, religions, countries, cities, schools of thought and like groupings always carry some singular rationale that unifies and galvanizes it. However, the inconsistencies involved with individuals as subunits of the group will always prove to guarantee disagreement within the group -- and so, the interpretation or that ideal rationale is its undoing. No system can be perfect.

The consequence of opposition.

How will I live? (avoid death) } posits the control of the exterior
How will I live? (conduct life) } posits the control of the interior

A question about the economy: does it only grow when more people owe money into it? More people are vesting their time and effort into the economy, thus, willing to spend their time, effort and energy on the economy.


The notion of a threat to the economy astounds me. There is no possibility for the economy, a non-living entity, to be threatened by anything. It's existence is the construct of agreements made between people. Thus, the threat is to the people involved in the economy; specifically, the people who are doing well in this involvement.

Admittedly, the super structures of human life are underpinned at all turns to this economy, however, it begs the question, why? How did it come to pass that all people have opted to accept that economy is the great system by which the affairs of humanity are to be conducted. The global economy, in its present form, has existed for a mere century; five centuries if one is to trace economy to the incept of legal tender.

The only threat that there is to the nascent economy is that it will be exposed for the sham that it is. The battles of the past century exemplify the struggle to maintain the charade. Communist-Capitalist disparity and consequent Cold War; the quest for "freedom," whether from, or within, a democratic system; and, more recently, the effect of the spread of global economy to encapsulate a predominantly Islamic third world are all signposts of this "forced belief" in a single group of ideals. The ideals of the powerful excede rational expectations for providence and freedom. Insustainable ideals that cannot possibly stand the test of time.

The economy cannot be threatened; really, the present economy is the threat. Footed in finite, non-renewable resources such as crude oil and gold futures; embodied by potentialities, fuzzy logic, indicators and tendencies; the economy makes a mindless juggernaut of human endeavours. A quest to amass wealth to secure futures for a few is madness in a world of strife.

The tenuous balance could be upset any day now. A global war on terror has depressed the U.S. economy plunging the wealthiest nation into massive debt. A second G-8 nation shudders under the scandalous pressure of a corrupt minority government and the constant threat of separatist sentiment among its provinces. Yet a third cannot control violent internal rebellion against its powerful, recently totalitarian, government. The international community witnesses the leaders of the world fumble for a place within systems that are horribly outdated and cannot cope with the speed at which information is presently exchanged. Whether at NATO, or the OAS, or the UN -- there is discord among people. No single system can work. The indirect lesson learnt, get what you can and keep it.