the next president needs to put the gasoline situation in terms of the iraq war-

[dysfunctional press]

in that either we put our energies toward conservation and developing alternatives, or we commit our children and grandchildren to fighting more and more expensive wars for control over the dwindling global supply of increasingly costly oil.

i have faith that the american people would understand, and realize that the first option is the best way to go.

[whistle]

1. Perhaps even an Iran War, these BushCo wars have been about the suppression of

...oil supplies to drive up the prices :wtf:

[DJ13]

2. Correct. A manufactured crisis brought about by a manufactured war

[dysfunctional press]

5. it's still been a war about control over the oil supply- just not for the common good...

of the people actually doing the dying...on either side.

and the future wars, if/when they come, will be fiercer and costlier. we have no real choice but to try to avoid them.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. "I've only got 6 months left in office boyz, better get all you can

before I go".... or something like that I'm sure.

[KG]

4. don't hold your breath.

energy crisis is an elephant in the room every president has manged to ignore since 1979.

[dysfunctional press]

6. i don't think that there will be any ignoring this one.

gasoline will be over $5 (at least) by election time.

obama's not going to try and hide from that.

the people are going to be voting for change- and they're going to get their change in a big way.

[KG]

8. pish-posh.

obama is just another go-along-to-get-along politico. the 'change' vibe is just campaign rhetoric for the deluded. the dem party just is not a vehicle for change.

[whistle]

16. Certainly Barack Obama's foreign policy advisor's list shows that a group

...of advisor's bent on staying with the policies of the past before BushCo will be moving their way back into power should Obama win.

<snip>
February 19, 2008
Samantha Power and Obama's Foreign Policy Team
By Richard Baehr and Ed Lasky

Senator Barack Obama, though impressive in his oratorical abilities, may not have the foreign policy experience that many would like to see, or that his opponents possess. It is reasonable to expect that he may rely on the foreign policy advisors he has chosen to a greater extent than would a new president more adequately grounded in foreign affairs and national security matters.

Over the past month, controversy has erupted over the issue of Senator Obama's foreign policy advisers and the impact that they might have on a future President Obama's policies toward Israel, and on American foreign policy in the broader region. Articles in the Washington Post, Newsweek, American Thinker, New York Sun, Politico, Commentary Magazine, The New Republic, CAMERA and other publications have precipitated this controversy.

Both those who support Senator Obama and his quest for the presidency and those who have concerns often share the same goal: ensuring that our next president comes to office well-prepared for the demands of the highest office in our nation. The President is uniquely powerful in the realm of foreign policy. In these perilous times, all of us want to ensure that the man or woman who steps into the White House in January is well-prepared to deal with the foreign policy challenges that lie ahead.


Who are Obama's Foreign Policy Advisors?

Newsweek published a list of Senator Obama's foreign policy advisers that included Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley. A few weeks later, the Washington Post on October 2, 2007 published a list of foreign policy advisers for all the major candidates, which list included the names of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice as advisers to Senator Obama. Subsequently, Martin Peretz -- an Obama supporter -- wrote at the end of December that he got the "shudders" when thinking about the foreign policy influence of "Zbigniew Brzezinski... Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Robert O. Malley".

Peretz touched upon some of the reasons to be concerned about Malley, whom he characterized as "the most horrific name on the list". He was particularly concerned about the impact on America-Israel relations given Brzezinski's and Malley's involvement. Brzezinski's lack of concern for the safety and security of Israel is well known. Opposition to his role in the campaign was voiced across the political spectrum. Peretz touched upon some of the reasons to be concerned about the role of Malley, which were further developed in an article on our site that focused on a long series of articles Malley has written that reveal views that should give pause to all those concerned about the future of the America-Israel relationship.

<MORE>

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/samantha_power_and_obamas_fore_1.html

[The2ndWheel]

7. You can't conserve and develop at the same time

If you conserve, you're not spending more money and not using more energy. If you develop, you're spending more money and using more energy.

[dysfunctional press]

10. of course you can...

people can conserve energy by carpooling, driving more fuel efficient cars, bicycling, turning down the heat/ac, etc...while at the same time, more r&d can be done as far as developing alternative sources of fuel/energy.

[The2ndWheel]

13. That's not conservation

Conservation would be carpooling, driving more fuel efficient cars, bicycling, turning down the heat/ac, and not using the money/energy that is saved by doing those things to conduct R&D for alternative energy, which would only be conducted in order for more people to have access to more energy if/when the R&D is successful. You don't invest in R&D in order to use less of whatever it is that you're researching and developing. Do we use more energy today than than we did in 2000? 1990? 1960? 1940? 1860? 1776? 1492? The cheaper the energy, the more ways we find to use it. We don't conserve because we increase our ability to extract and harness the energy. That's why wealthy people can "throw money away" by doing whatever it is that they do, and the less wealthy individuals have to make a budget. In our sense of fairness, we try and give the people having to make a budget the ability to loosen the belt a little, giving them the ability to freely spend their money on what they want. Has that ever led to conservation?

That's why conservation by carpooling, driving more fuel efficient cars, bicycling, and turning down the heat/ac is a losing game. People end up conserving, but the overall economic system ends up using more energy, because there are still people that aren't using as much energy as even the people conserving, and that's just in this country. We now live in a global world, with billions of people still not hooked into the dominant global socio-economic system. Conservation will only work when the current 6.5+ billion people have everything they need, and never less than they need, the additional few billion soon coming have everything they need, and never less than they need, and not one single person is added to the population after that.

[dysfunctional press]

15. conserve energy produced by fossil fuels, while developing alternatives...

sounds completely reasonable to me.

and when the alternatives are more/fully developed- hopefully conservation won't be an issue.

and btw- in case you haven't noticed, it IS already starting- people are conserving much more now, due to the higher gas prices.

[The2ndWheel]

17. "hopefully conservation won't be an issue"

Well alternative fuels are great and everything, but they're not going to allow us to live outside of physical reality. Hunting and gathering had an impact on the environment. Not conserving energy in a global civilization powered by alternatives(and even oil is technically an alternative fuel source) where billions of people are living better than some kings and queens of yesteryear, isn't going to allow us to not worry about environmental problems. At best alternatives will create different problems, maybe even worse problems if the machine of civilization thinks conservation won't be an issue.

"and btw- in case you haven't noticed, it IS already starting- people are conserving much more now, due to the higher gas prices."

Exactly. Most people are conserving not because it's a nice idea, but because they don't have the money to buy the resource. They're practical. They have budgets and families. On the other hand, if the price was cheaper, they wouldn't conserve, unless forced to monetarily.

[dysfunctional press]

18. hopefully a cheap and plentiful source of energy will be discovered/developed...

that will make conservation unnecessary.

if it weren't for the cheap and plentiful energy that oil used to be counted on for- most of us wouldn't even be in existence today...so if another cheap/plentiful/sustainable source comes around- i'll be all for it.

[tama]

12. Bingo! n/t

[indepat]

9. The next president also needs to put the loss in value of the dollar since we went over there in

terms of the Iraq war. :D

[dysfunctional press]

11. $3 trillion, 6 years, thousands upon thousands of lives, all lost.

nt

[indepat]

14. Significant, no substantial part of the current price of oil and loss in value of the dollar, yet

tens of millions of faithful ideologues and followers will be chanting this summer during the RNC: four more years, four more years. :shrug: