Tom,
I agree with a lot of your views, but the European sentiment toward the US seems mixed, at best. In European opinion polls, the US is still consistently named as the biggest threat to world peace. Last I saw - April or May of this year -that included France and Germany by significant margins over the runner-up, Iran or Israel, depending on the country in question. They may have elected conservative leaders, but many Euro-voters seem to believe (rationally or otherwise) that the US caused their problems.
Chad - your juvenile rsponses add nothing to this debate.
Nrchy - Your position that everyone is a passive "price taker" of oil is an overstatement. The study of policies to manipulate supply/demand is called Macro-Economics. HOV lanes, subsidies for alternative fuels and public transportation, and CAFE mileage regulations are just a few examples of policies that damp demand for oil. Any administration has far more extreme policy options available - however, they might well cause more harm than good, in many ways.
Further undermining your own argument, you compare price spikes during the Carter aadmin to the Dubya admin. Incredibly enough, I'm about to defend Carter ( the worst US president in my lifetime till Bush2). Both price spikes were the result of "supply shocks".:
In Carter's case it was the overthrow of the Shah.
Dubya INVADED IRAQ!
It would be a stretch to claim that these presidents were equally passive victims of supply/demand forces beyond their respective control.
Your position on the history of nuclear energy in the US is similarly marked by overstatement and/or misinformation.
"Every US plant" is outdated?
Are you suggesting that the US generating portfolio should be 100% nuclear?
"Tree huggers have prevented viable and safe energy since the '70's"?
Putting aside questions of safety and reliability, PURPA - the 1978 law which effected the restructuring of the US power industry - has proven a far greater impediment to nuclear development than tree huggers over your time frame.
My point is:
Defending a fundamentally conservative approach to government does not require defending Geprge Bush. He is manifestly incompetent. Nor does this point of view need overstatent and ad hominem venom.
Marty
I agree with a lot of your views, but the European sentiment toward the US seems mixed, at best. In European opinion polls, the US is still consistently named as the biggest threat to world peace. Last I saw - April or May of this year -that included France and Germany by significant margins over the runner-up, Iran or Israel, depending on the country in question. They may have elected conservative leaders, but many Euro-voters seem to believe (rationally or otherwise) that the US caused their problems.
Chad - your juvenile rsponses add nothing to this debate.
Nrchy - Your position that everyone is a passive "price taker" of oil is an overstatement. The study of policies to manipulate supply/demand is called Macro-Economics. HOV lanes, subsidies for alternative fuels and public transportation, and CAFE mileage regulations are just a few examples of policies that damp demand for oil. Any administration has far more extreme policy options available - however, they might well cause more harm than good, in many ways.
Further undermining your own argument, you compare price spikes during the Carter aadmin to the Dubya admin. Incredibly enough, I'm about to defend Carter ( the worst US president in my lifetime till Bush2). Both price spikes were the result of "supply shocks".:
In Carter's case it was the overthrow of the Shah.
Dubya INVADED IRAQ!
It would be a stretch to claim that these presidents were equally passive victims of supply/demand forces beyond their respective control.
Your position on the history of nuclear energy in the US is similarly marked by overstatement and/or misinformation.
"Every US plant" is outdated?
Are you suggesting that the US generating portfolio should be 100% nuclear?
"Tree huggers have prevented viable and safe energy since the '70's"?
Putting aside questions of safety and reliability, PURPA - the 1978 law which effected the restructuring of the US power industry - has proven a far greater impediment to nuclear development than tree huggers over your time frame.
My point is:
Defending a fundamentally conservative approach to government does not require defending Geprge Bush. He is manifestly incompetent. Nor does this point of view need overstatent and ad hominem venom.
Marty