Wednesday, March 19, 2008
"None Like It Hot"
I recently watched the documentary "Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. My thoughts on the film will come soon. I enjoyed this cartoon clip titled "None Like It Hot", from the television show "Futurama", shown in Gore's presentation and thought it might be entertaining to all of you as well. Let me know what you think.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
To War or not To War...
After reading the comment last posted by Mark, I had to question why we tend to point the finger of blame in the direction of (as Mark put it)"George Bush and his 'Buddies in the Oil Industry'". Is there some truth behind this reaction? Or are those who would place blame in this direction just "left leaning" individuals in need of a "reality check"?
For me personally, it is hard to trust that President Bush's motives are for the greater good and/or for the safety of our society. Report after report of kick-backs and tax-cuts given to his supporters in the Big Oil Industry after being elected president couldn't be without strings attached. Even more incriminating were the statements made by Alan Greenspan(R)who is widely admired for his long run as the head of the Federal Reserve critisizing Bush's ecomonomic policies and what he sited as the real reason for invading Iraq in 2003. "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," Greenspan said.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
Just as Mark stated, we didn't go to war on "terrorism" against Saudi Arabia and continued to "play nice" with this foreign government that we have come to rely on so heavily for oil. As Greenspan believed, "Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East," and that was why we invaded Iraq. If our government leaders were willing to fight (or not fight) to protect our claim to the world's oil, who's to say where they would draw the line in the future when the reserves continue to shrink and new oil is harder and more expensive to find? Brant's comments might be viewed as "left leaning" but it seems like a very possible scenario when we are already risking American life to protect this commodity now.
I am sure that we all agree with Mark when he stated, "It’s important that refineries continue to develop new methods of being cleaner and friendlier to the environment." However,who will mandate this profit-cutting regulation when Bush's administration's response to rising oil costs in the past has merely been a cut in clean-fuel standards that made it easier for Big Oil to produce larger ammounts of green-house gas producing, dirty oil? Bush's reaction to the state of the oil industry in 2006 was publicly critisized by democrats and republicans alike. Senator Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said big oil companies are the culprits behind runaway gas prices which he says go "way beyond what supply and demand would merit."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/26/politics/main1549350.shtml>
Oil prices are even higher now and relief for this strain on the american families budget is no where in sight. The US economy is in a vulnerable position and complaints of the increased financial on the American consumer are voiced daily. The end of oil may be in sight, but the effects of this on the economy are only beginning.
For me personally, it is hard to trust that President Bush's motives are for the greater good and/or for the safety of our society. Report after report of kick-backs and tax-cuts given to his supporters in the Big Oil Industry after being elected president couldn't be without strings attached. Even more incriminating were the statements made by Alan Greenspan(R)who is widely admired for his long run as the head of the Federal Reserve critisizing Bush's ecomonomic policies and what he sited as the real reason for invading Iraq in 2003. "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," Greenspan said.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
Just as Mark stated, we didn't go to war on "terrorism" against Saudi Arabia and continued to "play nice" with this foreign government that we have come to rely on so heavily for oil. As Greenspan believed, "Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East," and that was why we invaded Iraq. If our government leaders were willing to fight (or not fight) to protect our claim to the world's oil, who's to say where they would draw the line in the future when the reserves continue to shrink and new oil is harder and more expensive to find? Brant's comments might be viewed as "left leaning" but it seems like a very possible scenario when we are already risking American life to protect this commodity now.
I am sure that we all agree with Mark when he stated, "It’s important that refineries continue to develop new methods of being cleaner and friendlier to the environment." However,who will mandate this profit-cutting regulation when Bush's administration's response to rising oil costs in the past has merely been a cut in clean-fuel standards that made it easier for Big Oil to produce larger ammounts of green-house gas producing, dirty oil? Bush's reaction to the state of the oil industry in 2006 was publicly critisized by democrats and republicans alike. Senator Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said big oil companies are the culprits behind runaway gas prices which he says go "way beyond what supply and demand would merit."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/26/politics/main1549350.shtml>
Oil prices are even higher now and relief for this strain on the american families budget is no where in sight. The US economy is in a vulnerable position and complaints of the increased financial on the American consumer are voiced daily. The end of oil may be in sight, but the effects of this on the economy are only beginning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
