Oy… when will the politicians learn?
There was a time when candidates and their surrogates could pretty much say anything they wanted, comfortable in the knowledge that busy reporters weren’t likely to take the time necessary to meticulously sift through all their bullshit. But in the age of the blogosphere you never know who’s going to whip out Lexis-Nexis and shove your nose in it.
That’s exactly what Darryl at Hominid Views has done with a blatantly dishonest assertion by Lobbyist Mike McGavick. Today’s Yakima Herald-Republic reports that Sen. Maria Cantwell wants to raise fuel economy standards to 35 MPG by 2017, to which McGavick stupidly responds:
[…] he’s long supported increased vehicle fuel efficiency and suggested Cantwell is late to the issue.
“The senator’s been on the energy committee so she’s had plenty of time to work on CAFE standards. Too bad it didn’t come up six years ago,” he said.
Well, if McGavick has long supported raising CAFE standards, Darryl certainly couldn’t find any record of it: no congressional testimony, no position papers, no statements to the press. Indeed, a quick bit of Googling of my own found that even when a commenter on McGavick’s own campaign blog raised this exact same issue — asking “How about raising the CAFE standards?” — McGavick failed to respond.
And what about McGavick’s snide dismissal of Cantwell as late to the issue? Darryl goes directly to the Congressional Record to show it for the lie that it is, pointing to a March 2002 speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, in which Cantwell bluntly summarizes her position.
I continue to believe that raising CAFE standards is absolutely critical in promoting more efficient fuel use.
Uh-huh. So I guess the hallmark of a campaign based on civility is lying about your opponent’s record?
If McGavick thinks he can lay stinking turds like this one without stepping in his own excrement he’s got another thing coming. Bloggers like me and Darryl are reading the papers, and the papers are reading us, and if there’s one thing a reporter hates more than being scooped, it’s being pooper-scooped. There’s only so much lying crap like this the media will take from McGavick before they start calling him on his bullshit.
Lesson learned? Somehow I doubt it.
HEY GOLDY TAKE A LOOK AT THE LATEST POLL YOU IDIOT.
Does Lobbyist! have any core principles? It seems he’ll say or do anything to get elected.
Also, the pedant in me insists on pointing out that it’s “another think coming”:
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/thing.html
So Goldy it’s not news that republicans just lie and make shit up. We’ve all known that for a long time. The question is, what can and should we do about it? Please invite Alaska’s Senatorial candidate onto your radio show. I’d bet money the coward won’t show up but if he does, you can pin him down on this. I’d love to listen to him squirm.
Rasmussen: “Cantwell Slide Continues”
Rasmussen reports today that Republican challenger Mike McGavick continues to close the gap, calling the Washington Senate race a toss-up
In the latest Rasmussen Reports poll of an increasingly competitive U.S. Senate race, Senator Cantwell now leads former Safeco CEO Mike McGavick ® 44% to 40%, a toss-up. She led by five points in May, eight in April, thirteen in March, fifteen in January.
Meanwhile, this week’s SurveyUSA report ranks Cantwell as tied for 80th most popular U.S. Senator.
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/006380.html
You’re doing yeoman work for Cantwell, Goldy.
Too bad you don’t get much help from her.
I’m not worried about McGavick’s numbers. Right now he’s getting increased name recognition from all those annoying banner ads he’s posting on SeattleTimes.com and King5.com, among other things. But he’s still trying to fly in under the radar, he doesn’t want anyone to know that he’s really a Republican or an insurance lobbyist. Once the voters get to know him, his numbers will drop again.
By the way, Republicans love to run as “successful businessmen”. The tendency is for them to get put into top positions in companies which are being managed for the short term, and then get out and run for office shortly before the company starts sliding as a result of their management. They also like to argue that their management skills will allow them to “cut waste and fraud in government”.
So here’s and example of such Republican management over the past six years, from today’s news. A GSA director of Utilities Management was suspended with pay in Nov. 2001 while under investigation for fraud and kickbacks in connection with utilties contracts. Nothing unusual there, the investigators are doing their job, and pay would continue until the investigation is concluded.
But here’s where it gets sticky. He remained on paid suspension for FIVE YEARS, between Nov. 2001 and Dec. 2005, when he RETIRED. During this time he was under criminal investigation, he received RAISES AND PROMOTIONS, from his 2001 salary of $71,961.00 to his Dec. 2005 Salary of $93,781.00!
If a Democrat was President, don’t you think the Republicans and their talk-radio nymphs would be screaming to high heaven, arguing about how incompetent the Democrats were as managers of the federal tax dollars? Funny how they haven’t mentioned this one yet. But if they did, you can be sure they would try to blame the Democrats, anyway. Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
Oops, forgot to post the link to the story:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ef21m.html
Republicans are to voters like high-school jocks are to virgins: “Come’on, baby, trust me! It will be great! Let’s go all the way, nothing bad will happen!”
A few months later, the voter realizes they’ve been screwed, they are in trouble, and the Republicans are telling them its all their own fault.
A vote for McGavick is a vote to support the one-party republican leadership in Washington DC.
That’s the only issue…the rest is irrelevant.
You like what’s happening in our country’s government…vote for McGavick. You don’t, vote for Cantwell.
It doesn’t get any simpler than that…
Carl Jeffer’s opinion article in today’s Seattle Times:
“Republicans control the White House, the House of Representatives, the Senate and, some suggest, the Supreme Court. Yet, they want to make the November elections a referendum on the performance of Democrats. Good luck with that. I close with the Newt Gingrich-suggested theme for Democrats in the fall campaign: “Had enough?”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....arl21.html
Before we get to CAFE standards, how about first getting rid of the silly “business use” tax break people get on el gigantico SUV’s whose only “cargo” turns out to be groceries?
The industry McGavick just finished working in has of course for years incentivized us all to drive Cadillacs. Also to have grey hair and wear hats while driving. I have to admit I’m finally getting into compliance with that last part, but (smirk!) it’s taken me many years to accomplish it.
Rasmussen is a republcian polling firm.
Suppose your home is insured against fire and wind damage. And suppose your home is not insured for flood (as most aren’t, unless they have Federally subsidized flood insurance). You probably also are not insured against “earth movement”, such as you would get from an earthquake or mudslide.
But as Katrina victims have found out, their policies have provisions whereby if there are two causes of a disaster, and one of the causes is not covered, then you aren’t covered under the other cause either. So for thousands of homeowners, who had the roofs blown off their homes and the insides left vulnerable to hurricane-force wind-driven rain, are finding insurance companies denying coverage because of flooding, no matter how small the degree of flooding. So if you have to sweep out a few inches of water from your floors due to flooding, and the rest of the house was destroyed by rain and wind, you aren’t covered for any of it. That’s the industry position. Even the Republican Senator from Mississipi is suing his insuarnce company over this issue.
But let’s ask Mike McGavick if he thinks the insurance companies should be allowed to collect premiums from homeowners and then deny coverage based on such obscure policy language? Will he assure us that Safeco, under his leadership never relied upon such policy language to deny coverage to Katrina or Rita victims? Will he sponsor legistlation in Congress which prohibits such actions by insurance companies with respect to any future disasters? Or will he, as we expect, remain silent on the issue, and wait until he is in Congress to make sure nothing interferes with the insurance industry’s rape of their policyholders? Instead, won’t he push for legislation making it darn near impossible to get an insurance company for anything, and call it “liability reform”?
Remarkable, isn’t it, that despite the insurance company’s insistence that they have settled 98% of all hurricane claims for 2005, that they posted record profits?
If we elect McGavick, the insurance industry lobbyist, to Congress, we have indeed put the fox in charge of security for the henhouse, and we deserve all that we get thereafter.
Would you really vote for your insurance adjuster?
I work in Bellevue, and I’m amazed at how almost every available parking space is marked “Compact”, but there is nary a compact in sight. I drive an older 2-door Explorer myself, so I cannot complain to much, but its incredible to find that my car is usually the smallest one in the lot. All those full-size Excursions, Suburbans, Hummers, etc. get a free pass on CAFE standards. Do you really think McGavick is going to do anything which will make those favorite vehicles of Conservatives scarcer, or more expensive???? Of course not. He’s just going to throw stones at Cantwell, but he won’t dare do anything about the CAFE standards himself.
15.
A Ford Escape Hybrid would be a hell of a lot better for the environment than most of the hulks parked there now.
It isn’t the best, but if you want a SUV for size, room and off-road, there’s no reason to have a gas guzzler, as well.
GOP VOTES FOR POVERTY — AGAIN
Today, the GOP-controlled Senate rejected an increase in the $5.15 federal minimum wage — for the 9th time in 9 years.
You can bet Insurance Mike and Rubberstamp Reichert are reliable anti-worker votes.
Republicans don’t believe there should be ANY minimum wage. They think the “market” should determine wages. What they mean, of course, is a manipulated market in which employers conspire to hold down wages to keep labor CHEAP.
Like this:
“Suit Claims Hospitals Fixed Nurses’ Pay
“By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
“Published: June 21, 2006
“Nurses filed class-action lawsuits yesterday against hospitals in Chicago, Memphis, San Antonio and Albany, asserting that the hospitals had violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to hold down nurses’ wages.
“The lawsuits maintain that hospitals in each city agreed not to pay their registered nurses above a certain amount and exchanged information about how much they were paying their nurses.
“Lawyers for the nurses said the hospitals had artificially depressed wages by hundreds of millions of dollars in Chicago and Memphis and by tens of millions of dollars in San Antonio and Albany.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/us/21nurses.html
You see, Republicans don’t believe in SHARING. Even though the economy would produce NOTHING without LABOR, they believe capital should get the lion’s share of the economy’s output, and labor should settle for whatever crumbs the owners of capital feel like tossing to them.
Fuck you, Republicans.
And fuck every liar who claims to be a “Democrat” or “moderate” but then turns around and votes for hard-right politicians who would repeal even a $5-an-hour minimum wage law if they could.
If you vote for Reichert or McGavick, or for Dino Rossi, you are NOT a Democrat or a moderate — you are a hard-core, right-wing turdfuck.
1
“Yo” is a contraction of the word “yahoo” (as in “trailer park yahoo”) and is properly spelled “Y’o.” Like must turdfucks, Y’o can’t even spell his own phucking name.
See? I know can play the ad hominem game, too. It’s fun!
8
Where is the politcal party mentioned in the article?
The forceful ideas of the left, ideas that were going to turn the world upside down, now reduced to the exemplar Roger Rabbit typing obscenities at those who disagree with him. What happened to my once beautiful freedom-seeking left? Reduced now to a public and humiliating disgracful abusing of public servants while the right goes forth to battle the most lethal forces on the planet.
3
Your assumptions of intelligence or lack of only shows your lack of that attribute. Perhaps, you would like to offer supportable facts to your discussions?
The rightwing trollfucks on this site like to extol “Producers.” I wonder how they categorize an insurance executive within the context of “Producers.” There is no more extractive industry than the insurance industry. From driving the healthcare industry into the ground to ripping off the average policyholder by charging exhorbitant premiums and denying claims, the insurance industry has its hand in harming us in so many ways. We do not need an insurance executive representing us in the Senate. Mr. McGavick should slither away and stop pretending he gives a rat’s ass about the public.
So, Cantwell mentioned CAFE standards in 2002. That’s it?
I realized she was ineffective, but this just proves it. If she cared about the issue, why hasn’t she worked with other members of her party, or found someone across the aisle, and proposed some legislation?
Maybe that’s why she ranks 80th on the list of Senators. They don’t even like her.
proud leftist,
On the whole the insurance industry does more good than harm; and it goes both ways – policy holders too perform their share of dirty tricks and hi-jinks (I have a claims adjuster friend with endless great stories); but, then again, you fit the profile of the bitter foul-mouthed leftist, filled with resentment at those with more money and responsibility than you have; are you using leftist politics to get even with those who live healthy happy lives within the capitalist system, and you, incapable of happiness must excoriate them? If so, how sad. Sad that you fullfil the cliche so perfectly to the mold.
25.
Teee Heeee. And das fool has the nerve to say he was once a progressive. Whan was it das, did you join SDS to get chicks (or Abbie Hoffman), were you stoned at a Phish concert, did you go to Mardi Gras once?
Pretty poor performance, Kevin.
das
I appreciate your little profile of me. I’ll share it with my friends. Like most rightwingers, you reach your beliefs from whimsy and speculation. I am hardly a bitter or resentful guy. I’ve been blessed in far too many ways to ever complain about my personal circumstances. I am a leftist because, despite the cynical pillaging that the Bushites are putting us through to enrich the upper crust, I have hope that the lot of the less fortunate can be improved. I believe this country might still become a shining city on a hill. The right rules through fear, misinformation, and rewarding of the faithful. Anything that stands in its way–science, civil liberties, principles–gets trashed. Your cliches shape a mind that is closed. Hang in your dark room and scream. No one can hear you.
NOTICE how Janet S is TOTALLY okay with the fact that Mikey lied about Senator Cantwell – I guess that’s how Janet raised her kids. Lie all you want if it’s about a Dem.
Another think coming is the phrase.
So, let me get this right. She makes a comment in 2002 that the CAFE standards should be raised. And that’s it? McGavick was chiding her for lack of leadership. If she really felt strongly about this, as you all imply, and goldy rights indignantly here, why didn’t she do something about it?
Talk is cheap. Unless you are a former software exec who bought a Senate seat for $10 million.
das @ 21
“What happened to my once beautiful freedom-seeking left? “
Speaking of freedom, das, you have the freedom to shove your opinion up your ass. Do something about it!
There…the left has spoken!
Janet S @ 30
“She makes a comment in 2002 that the CAFE standards should be raised. And that’s it? “
Nope…there is much more to it than that. But…to see that, you would have to actually, read, click links, possibly do some research on your own.
On the other hand, there seems to be a pretty good case that McGavick is a lyin’ asshole. That, in fact, is the real topic here.
21
…while the right goes forth to battle the most lethal forces on the planet…
How’s that confrontations going with Kim Jong-il?
Seems to me that Bush has grown continuously more mild at each stem in Kim’s weapons build up.
I seem to remember speaking with some long them wingnut, like you, early in early 2003 about how misdirected the attack on Iraq would be, considering that North Korea had already fired a missile the reached Alaska. He pointed out to me that Alaska was a long way from Seattle.
That was hardly the point, but I’m glad that Kim can hit other cities on the West Coast now. That makes us a one in four shot, at least. Maybe our odds have improved.
Is that what you meant?
some long time wingnut
Sillyguy at 20:
No mention of the party in the article. You would have to know, from independent sources, that George W. Bush has been head of the Executive Branch for the period which includes Nov. 2001 through Dec. 2005, and that the Executive Branch includes the General Services Administration as well as the Justice Dept., which was conducting the investigation.
Proud leftist wrote:
“…to enrich the upper crust…the lot of the less fortunate can be improved…”
What less fortunate do you have in mind, PL? What is wrong iwth a rich upper crust? Why do you hate the rich? Why all this bitterness and profanity towards the rich and all this fake compassion for the poor? And besides, how can anyone in America claim to be unfortunate? Not only is America rich in money but opportunity abounds? Libraries, parks, schools, bike paths…who are all these poor people in whose name you carry such bitterness for? Do you even know any poor people?
Hey Janet – Slade Gorton supported higher CAFE stadards, and HE wasn’t able to build enough support to pass them either. Does that bother you too? The problem is the auto industry owns Congress, not that Cantwell is ineffective. At least she’s proposing a sane response to our oil problems instead of lying to get us into war for oil.
@21:
The forceful ideas of the left, ideas that were going to turn the world upside down, now reduced….
I suppose then it would be reasonable to assert the ideas of the right are reduced to the lunatic ravings of Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter?
What happened to my once beautiful freedom-seeking left?
Still there, but you obviously don’t wish to look for it.
Reduced now to a public and humiliating disgracful abusing of public servants….
Yes, I do recall the thoughtful and noble attacks on President Clinton.
…while the right goes forth to battle the most lethal forces on the planet.
Hardly. A small band of criminals hiding out in the foothills to the Himalayas is the “most leathal force on the planet”? You really are a fool.
Danka,
I don’t happen to think that CAFE standards are the answer to attaining fuel efficiency. I do believe the market will be the answer. As gas prices stay at this higher level, people will demand more miles per gallon in their vehicles, and leave the gas guzzlers in the garage. They will buy hybrids. Car companies either supply what is demanded, or go under.
That’s called the American way. Sorry you prefer dictating solutions and running command economies. Maria agrees with you, but is just too ineffective to accomplish it.
Janet S @ 39
What???? So, you are suggesting that Mike! “long supported increased vehicle fuel efficiency” McGavick AND Slade Gorton were both wrong? Better get your answer double checked by Wingnut Central.
Sure, market forces are great at dealing with fuel economy—in the same way that starvation can cure overpopulation problems. Don’t you have trouble with a huge trade deficit? Don’t you think it is a national security risk having to be heavily dependent on other countries to feed our fossil fuel addiction?
What about pumping additional C02 into the atmosphere? Is the “market” going to have a timely response to raising sea level? (Or are you another one of those kooks who feel that the scientific concensus on the effect of atmospheric C02 concentrations on the global heat budget is “speculation”?)
An on that topic, was it bad for state, local, and federal governments to “dictate solutions” to lower exhaust emissions from motor vehicles? Or, was the “market” just about to deal with metropolitan air quality issues when governments stepped in?
dj I TOLD YOU TO LAY OF THE GLUE.HEY YOUR PRETTY TOUGH THERE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT TWO ICE CUBES IN YOUR MOUTH AND COLD COCK US.FUCK YOU.
Notice how the cowardly Janet S runs from the real topic and tries to change the subject? The point of this thread, no matter how much she wishes it wasn’t, is that Alaska’s Senatorial candidate Mike McGavick has been caught lying. Janet S supports a liar. Must mean she’s a liar.
The twitching lump of fetal mass lifts it tiny little head, and with all its might squeaks out (@ 41):
“dj I TOLD YOU TO LAY OF THE GLUE.HEY YOUR PRETTY TOUGH THERE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT TWO ICE CUBES IN YOUR MOUTH AND COLD COCK US.FUCK YOU.”
Awww…the precious little chromosomal anomaly has an itty bitty case of Tourette’s Syndrome, too! Isn’t it adorable?
Hang in there little aneuploidy YO…we all love you!!!
OH HI YO! (OHIO? OHMI!) HOW’S THE CIRCLE JERKS GOIN’ OVER AT (UN)SP AND THE MENS ROOM AT THE WINGNUT TAVERN? WE ALL KNOW HOW YOU JUST LOVE TO “FINISH” OVER YOUR KEYBOARD WHILE SURFIN’ OVER HERE TO HA.ORG. YOU ALWAYS END YOUR COMMENTS WITH “FUCK YOU” – THAT’S HOW WE KNOW HOW YOU “FINISH”. YOU OUGHT TO CUT DOWN THOUGH YO! I HEAR MEDICARE DON’T COVER VIAGRA AND CHRISTINE GREGOIRE RAISED THE TAXES ON CAMEL UNFILTEREDS. THAT’S SPELLS HELL FOR A FELLA ON A GUVMINT PENSION. PEACE OUT SAILOR!
Cantwell’s candidacy suffers from her five years of near invisibility as a Senator.
Cantwell has blown away the advantage she should have had by spending 5 years in the shadows. Until last year’s odd Ted and Maria show (one rumor I hear is that Ted Stephens and Maria Cantwell are having a cover love affair) her stance on anything substantive was a total mystery to most of the State.
McGavick’s campaign so far is pretty dumbed down .. maybe that is intentional, all he needs to do now is erode her lead. But, if he is smart, she has left him enough issues to support a broadside worthy of the USS Ironsides. Ask yourself, where does Maria stand on the following critical Washington State issues:
1. Immigration
2. The declining support for public education
3. Agricultural relations with Cuba
4. US export policies affecting Microsoft and Boeing.
She is also, ironically, vulnerable on class issues. This state is becoming very much like 19th century England … raising complex tax issues. While Cantwell can not rear the blame, the failure of Congress to fix social security and the alt. min. tax could give Mr. Insurance a real opening.
Oh yeah, Cantwell is “correct” on gay marriage .. that will win her a free cup of coffee at Tully’s but no votes.
even sillier guy @20
Which political party has been appointing executive branch officials since 2001?
21
“Roger Rabbit typing obscenities at those who disagree with him”
Take what you can get — be happy I’m not making death threats like your side does (e.g., Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter).
25
An extractive industry on a par with insurance companies is trial lawyers; and I recall a lot of “bitter foul-mouthed rightists, filled with resentment” at a trial lawyer “with more money and responsibility than they have” named John Edwards.
Why do you fucks get so indignant at leftists who mimic your behavior? You should be flattered that we’re adopting your role model.
Janet Boob @30
You want CAFE standards raised? Vote Democrat.
Now, from my perspective as a rabbit with royal aspirations, I’d just as soon you Republicans keep burning oil like it’s going out of style. Because the sooner you go through the whole supply, the quicker your civilization will collapse, and your species will die off. Then rabbits will take over the planet, and I will be their ruler. Roger Rabbit — King of the Universe!!!
HAR HAR HAR HAR HR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Man there’s gonna be a lot less cars squishing my kids on Green Lake Way after all the oil is gone.
36
“Why all this bitterness and profanity towards the rich and all this fake compassion for the poor?”
Because they’re greedy fucks who take the whole pie.
Because they don’t want to share any of the economy’s output with the workers who produce it.
Because they want workers to pay all the taxes while they pay none.
Because they don’t earn their keep — their shtick is not taking risks, but making taxpayers and shareholders take all the risks while they take all the profit.
Because they’re pricks.
Because they vote Republican.
37
I really don’t understand why the auto industry opposes CAFE standards. More oil consumption leads to higher gas prices which leads to people driving less which leads to people buying new vehicles less often. If they want to sell more cars, they should be making cars that get 100 mpg.
Clueless Janet @39
Do you know what “market failure” is?
Part of the problem is that corporations have become so effective at externalizing costs (in part through corporate-controlled government) that market mechanisms no longer work properly. E.g., the costs of increased smog from vehicle emissions are borne by the general public in the form of increased health care costs, not by the makers or drivers of either the fuel or vehicles. Markets are pac-mans; over time, they become less free, function less well, and ultimately eat themselves. Capitalism is self-destroying. Regulated capitalism is the only sustainable capitalism.
The pharmaceutical industry needs to be nationalized because they take research that is funded with our tax money, make a product using our research, and then price-gaff the public for the RESEARCH THAT THEY ( the public )PAID FOR with their tax money.
We don’t need this kind of crap masquerading as the “free market”.
Screw ’em!!
re 45: Maria Cantwell has a D. in front of her name and has therefore earned my vote this time around.
We’re all gonna vote like that.
Fuck the Republicans!
The most serious type of market failure is caused by the market’s built-in short sightedness. Markets invariably have a short term orientation. Not only do they fail to plan for the long-term health or survival of economies and societies, but market-based decision-making often is contrary to a company’s or society’s long-term interests. Unregulated market forces typically behave like a corporation that consumes its capital to boost dividend payments to shareholders, or a farmer who eats his seed supply in order to boost short term consumption.
Oil is humanity’s seed corn. There is no replacement for it. Yet we treat oil as if it will last forever, when in fact we’re consuming it at a rate that will exhaust all known reserves within 30 years. America is incredibly wasteful with oil. Half a century ago, we dismantled our country’s mass transit systems. Now, with double the population, millons of us drive 30 to 100 miles a day, five days a week, to work in huge office structures doing work that could be done with a computer and phone located anywhere. When market forces produce temporary oil gluts, as they periodically do, we buy bigger vehicles and build bigger homes.
Look around you at the homes being built today. These new homes will stand for 75 to 100 years, perhaps longer. Where is the energy to heat them going to come from 50 years from now?
Look at where they are being built — in some cases, more than 50 miles from where their owners work. How are the people living in them going to get from home to work, and back, 50 yars from now after all the cheap fuel is gone?
America has 5% of the world’s population but consumes 25% of the planet’s resources. But increasingly, we’ve used up our own resources, and have to get resources from other countries. Inevitably, others will compete for those resources, and those countries will want to use them for themselves. What then? What will happen to our economy and society when we can’t buy the resources we’ve become dependent upon at any price?
Human history is full of examples of collapsed civilizations followed by human population crashes. What makes us think we’re exempt? Why do we think it won’t happen to us, if we use up our resource base, consume our capital, eat our seed corn?
It should be clear by now that America’s wasteful consumption can’t be sustained indefinitely. It should be equally clear that market forces, useful as they are for some things, are not useful for solving such problems as overpopulation, overconsumption, resource exhaustion, and environmental degradation. Market decisions are based on what exists right now, not what will happen 10 or 25 years from now. A properly functioning market says, “the grain warehouse is full, so eat your fill now,” without thinking, “we need to save some of that grain to plant the next crop with.”
The true meaning of globalization is that human societies everywhere are becoming interdependent. In the past, when economies failed and societies depopulated, individual societies went down but not all of humanity. But humanity is now becoming a single economic society, and when (not if, but when) the global economy fails, all of humanity will go down. We will no longer have individual societal failures, but a global societal failure. History makes clear what happens to societies that exhaust their resource base and suffer economic collapse: Their populations crash. By “crash” I mean their population drops by anywhere from 50% to 99% or even total extinction. For example, Easter Island, which was colonized by Polynesians perhaps 1,500 years ago, had a peak population of around 30,000 but after centuries of deforestation and soil erosion, its food supply ran out, its population was reduced to eating rats to survive, and its native population ultimately crashed to slightly over 100 survivors.
Canada refers to its tribes as “First Peoples.” The far north’s Inuit people are not, in fact, the Canadian arctic’s “first people,” or even its second, or third. Archeologists now know at least four waves of migration into the arctic preceded the Inuits — and died out. The only trace of them remaining today is their bones and archealogical artifacts — there is not a single surviving descendant of any of the first four human migrations into Canada’s far north. All of their economies failed, and their entire populations died out. After the Inuits established themselves, the Norse came, and they died out too — not a single descendant of the Viking colonists in Greenland and the eastern arctic survived. Their communities are ruins, ghost towns, places where the bones of the last members of their societies were found laying on the floors of their dwellings. The Inuits are not “First Peoples,” they are “Fifth Peoples,” and now that global warming is destroying their food base, they will have to either migrate and assimilate into other societies, or they too are likely to die out.
When the market sees a valuable tree, it thinks, “cut me.” It doesn’t think, “this tree is essential to mankind’s long-term survival. If this tree is cut, it will not take CO2 from the air and put oxygen back into the atmosphere. If it is cut, the soil will erode, and the rain cycle will not work, and this land will not grow anything that can sustain animal or human life. This tree is immeasurably more valuable alive in the tropical rain forest than its worth as a stack of framing studs in a lumber yard.”
Market forces are cutting down the world’s rain forests. We now know deforestation was a root cause of most of history’s known collapses of human societies. Scientists tell us deforesting the planet will drastically reduce the planet’s ability to support human life. But the market is cutting down the trees. The market will cut them all. The market, by substitution short-term rationalization for long-term rationality, is suicidal.
Geez, Roger, it is amazing that humans have survived this long! We are all such idiots acting in our own best interest. Last time I looked, it was in my self interest to save for the future, which is longer than the next planting season.
Problem with your view – someone has to be in control. That means we all lose freedom. What makes the person in control so much smarter than the rest of us? That’s what is wrong with the collectivist ideas – they are elitist. We who are in charge are smarter than you who we have under our boot.
Ever wonder why free countries are wealthier and cleaner than dictatorships?
How Resource Crashes Work
Human societies typically start out small, and gradually consume more of their resource base as their populations expand. Their natural tendency is to keep growing, and consuming ever more resources, until the resource base is used up. When that happens, the decline is not a downslope, but a vertical drop. A society that took thousands of years to reach its peak population and consumption may entirely disappear within 10 years, or even 1 bad harvest.
Rabbit,
I like you in your reasonable, non-profanity mode of the last few posts; I know we could sit down and talk; you make some good points here. There must be a conservative inside you trying to get out.. (just kidding – don’t unleash a heavy profanity laden post at me…);
I found an eloquent article (ca. 1994), by a professional engineer, that discusses the economic and social aspects of “sustainable (human) development.” Here’s an excerpt:
“As humankind strives to attain a better quality of life, it
must recognize the inherent need for wise self-governance;
i.e., for sound ‘rules of the game.’ Western humankind
continues to follow the philosophies developed during a
period of relatively small population, perceived infinite
resources and a sense that competition for survival was with
nature rather than other humans. Circumstances have changed.
There is need for a new paradigm. That paradigm must
recognize that there are limits to population growth, that
accessible resources are limited spatially and finite
quantitatively, and that nature’s life system is essential to
humankind’s well-being and therefore should be nurtured for
humankind’s advantage. That paradigm should take advantage
of the good and govern the bad attributes and systems of
humankind.”
For complete article, see http://www.ciesin.org/kiosk/pu.....4-0021.txt
62
I would like to see conservatives and liberals step back from our present social and political precipice, re-establish civility as a social norm an expectation, regard each other as people of good intentions acting in good faith, and view politics as a competition of ideas in which discussion should be about issues rather than personalities.
For that to happen, both sides must repudiate extremist philosophies, reject ideological rigidity, eschew artful uses of propaganda to skew political outcomes, reaffirm their mutual commitment to democracy and free elections, work together to find practical solutions to real-world problems, be willing to negotiate and compromise, and accomodation variations in attitudes, philosophies, and belief systems.
It can be done. American society has done it, at various times in our history. We and our forebears also, at times, have failed to function as a healthy, democratic, fair and compassionate human community, most notably in the Civil War period. We are presently falling short of what our historical experience teaches us that we can be.
For this to happen, everyone needs to step back.
Well said Rabbit, damn…
Why Democrats Should Not Be Elected
=============================================
1) No one wants a party in control of our national defense whose members block critical protective equipment at the Port of Olympia.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/.....7574c.html
“What began May 22 as a quiet vigil to oppose the brigade’s 300 Stryker vehicles as they rolled through town escalated this week to a near riot with law enforcement officers deploying pepper spray on demonstrators they say were damaging the port’s security fencing.
Dozens have been arrested for investigation of charges ranging from pedestrian interference to malicious mischief. Most were immediately released after being booked into jail.”
Port officials say demonstrators did more than $5,000 damage to port property during the protest.”
2) Who would want people whose members are traitors and cowards such as Democrat Lt Watada, to run national security?
Democrats hail his treasonous action:
http://www.democrats.com/node/9157
3) Since 911, there have been no attacks on US soil. This is a longer sustained period without attacks on our ships or soil than ever under th disasterous years of Bill Clinton. Clearly the Bush strategy is working. No amount of liberal spin can deny that. They of course like to change the subject to London and Madrid. But last time I checked, the President of the United States doesn’t run those countries.
4) Democrats are eager to pronounce our troops guilty of attrocities at such places as haditha without so much as a trial. Yet they sue the governmet through their ACLU allies to get terrorists who have murdered our troops a jury trial. Why do democrats grant terrorist, the like of which have mutliated the two troops in Iraq and clist CIA agent Johnn Span’s throat, a jury tial yet no such presumption of innocence for our troops?
5) Democrats always SAY they supported the Afghanistan invasion. But that isn’t really true. Three short days after the planes struck the twin towers, while they still smoldered with the smell of burnt stinking flesh, Democrat Barbara Lee voted against the Afghanistan effort:
H J RES 64 YEA-AND-NAY 14-Sep-2001 11:17 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
The final vote results can be found here:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml
And as you can see, the only dissenter is Democrat Barbara Lee.
Here vote was hailed as “courageous” by other liberals.
6) If it were up to Democrats, there wouldn’t even be a Dept of Homeland Security. They tried to block its creation because they wanted to turn it into a makework project for their union buddies. Instead of the thinking about the victims lost on 911 and protecting the nation, Democrats first thought was to rewards their union buddies.
7) One of the deficiencies identified by the 911 commission was in fact created by one of the commisioners herself a Democrat. Democrat Jamie Gorelick served as Assistant Attorney General under Bill Clinton. In her famous memo, she created a wall of seperation between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. That wall hindered out effort to detect the 911 plot., Mohammad Atta was arrested prior to 911 but his computer could not be examined because of the wall that Gorelick created disallowing the information gathered by law enforcement to be handed over to our intelligence agencies. Given liberal rhetoric, if they had the chance, they would once again reestablish this wall and hinder any future efforts to foil terrorist plots.
8) The miltary under BIll Clinton was the sacrificial lamb for Clinton’s economic numbers. The result was that the day after 911, when the US needed several AWACS planes to fly patrol over the skies of America, it had to go begging for NATO pilots and planes. How ironic that the greatest power on earth didn’t even have enough of the very planes created in America due to the drastic cuts of the Clinton years. If given power again, Democrats would again cut our military to the bone. Such as strategy is only prudent if the nation intends to surrender its sovereignty to our enemies. Perhaps that is the Democrat plan.
9) Democrats opposed the Patriot Act and it was only under intense pressure from their constituents that they allowed its passage. They continue to villify the Patriot Act, yet successes such as the discovery of the plot by Iyman Faris and his plot to attack the Brooklyn bridge. If elected to a majority, Democrats will roll back the Patriot Act and terorrist will succeed in their plots against Americans.
10) Democrats’ liberal media allies revealed our intelligence gathering technique of tapping overseas calls by Al Qaeda to their operatives in the US. Who in their right mind would want people in charge of national security who publicly reveal our intelligence gathering strategies to terrorists? Only liberals could be that dumb. Or do they really hate America that much?
11) Liberals make the false claim that their freedom of speech is being curtailed. Yet if one looks around, one can see that Goldstein still freely posts vitriol in his blog, Goldstein still spews vitriole over the airwaves and no government agency has curtaied his free speech and that of his looney sycophants. However there is an effort to restrict freedom of speech but it isn’t Republicans that are perpetrating it.
Democrat New Jersey Assemblywomen Joan Quigley and Linda Stender have introduced legislation to ban the sale of Ann Coutler’s “Godless” in New Jersey.
See: http://www.assemblydems.com/pr.....oulter.htm
Do we really want such a party holding the reigns of power during such a critical period as the War on Terror? What are the free speech implications should such a paty in favor of censorship ever gain the reigns of national government?
12) Democrats do not truly even believe we are in a war. Many rationalize that 911 was either a just response to a supposed US shortcoming or that 911 was a plot by Republicans to gain favor and retain power (aka “Inside Job”). Do we really want people who canot even recognise the essential truths of 911 to ave the power to shut down the war on terror and leave the nation defenseless?
13) If elected, Democrats would pull the troops out of Iraq and immediately cut and run. Iraq would become another haven for Al Qaeda where they can roam without any worry of apprehension. Surely we would suffer another 911 style attack from terorrists trained in a terrorist controlled Iraq. We learned on 911 that strategy was a failure and did not ensure our safety from hijackers bent on killing Americans.
@61,
“Human societies typically start out small, and gradually consume more of their resource base as their populations expand. Their natural tendency is to keep growing, and consuming ever more resources, until the resource base is used up. When that happens, the decline is not a downslope, but a vertical drop. A society that took thousands of years to reach its peak population and consumption may entirely disappear within 10 years, or even 1 bad harvest.”
This is the same bunk that liberals were spoonfeeding people int he 1960’s with the book “The Population Bomb” by Paul R. Ehrlich.
Here is a dire prediction from that liberal propaganda:
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate…”
Now, if everyone is taking the attitude of a rabbit and thinking with their genitalis instead of their brains, then maybe I’d give this theory some consideration. But there just aren’t enough lie-ber-alls out there to make this happen. And by now we should have all been extinct according to that book.
The fact is that in the US the population is shrinking. We only maintain our numbers through immigration. Europe is experiencing the same shrinking of the population. Perhaps Roger Rabbit needs to give them a lesson on liberal proclivities relating to sexual acts.
62
Das, it’s like this. The way I see things, liberals are under attack. When attacked, I fight back. Now, this is a big country, and I believe there’s room in it for everybody, but only if we negotiate and compromise; and it ought to be obvious that an eliminationist philosophy doesn’t leave any room for peaceful resolution of differences.
I can operate in a variety of modes — as a judge, arbitrator, mediator, negotiator, advocate, reporter, and manager; I have done all those things. Since the right wing employs vicious propagandists, I figure our side better get some of those too, and I volunteered for that duty. Sort of appointed myself to it, if you will.
Like anyone fighting a trench war, I’d rather be living a normal life, and hope that peace will come soon, but not by means of surrender to forces that I consider dark and evil. What we do on this board is a kind of war. I am fighting for my tribue, if you will. This combat was initiated by forces larger than you and me, and it will take large forces to end it. It will end when the American electorate collectively has had enough of divisive politics and refuses to be led by those who are polarizing us.
As high as feelings run right now, and as uncivil as the discourse has become, it must be nothing compared to the Civil War and its aftermath, when Americans were not merely shouting at each other but were killing each other. Our subsequent history would have been very different if Lincoln had not spoken, and the nation had not taken to heart, these words:
“Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’ With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
We do not need to wonder what the formula is to resolve our impasse and resume civil society. It was laid before us 140 years ago, and rings as true today as then: We must set aside malice, eschew retribution and be charitable to our enemies, bind up the nation’s wounds, and seek a just peace among ourselves.
For now, I’m still in my trench, with bayonet fixed and ready to mete justice to you trollfucks and set things right. When the statesmen (if we still have any) decide that enough is enough, and it’s time for all of this to be over, then I will gladly come out of my hole and back into the sunlight of what I hope will be a more just and peaceful time ahead of us.
66
To be perfectly honest, I don’t see a way to negotiate or compromise with a lying fuck like you.
67
Pbj says, “This is the same bunk that liberals were spoonfeeding people int he 1960’s with the book ‘The Population Bomb’ by Paul R. Ehrlich. Here is a dire prediction from that liberal propaganda: ‘The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death …'”
Now for a wingnut reality check …
“Today, some 12 million children die annually of nutrition-related diseases.” http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/feedtheworld.htm
“According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, more than 25,000 people die of starvation every day … ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation
OK, if you wanna get technical, the problem currently is one of utilization and distribution of food resources, not resource capacity. The world can produce enough food to feed the current human population. The reasons why some of that population is unfed are closely related to resource exploitation, but do not stem directly from resource limitation.
But then, most historical human societies that collapsed did so because of unwise resource management, not because population exceeded the sustaining capacity of the resource base per se.
Your assertion the U.S. population is “shrinking” but for immigration is FALSE. The actual numbers are (as of 2005):
Birth rate: 14.14 births/1,000 population
Death rate: 8.25 deaths/1,000 population
Immigration rate: 3.31 migrants/1,000 population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.....ted_States
From these numbers, it is obvious the U.S. population would grow if there were no immigration, because the birth rate exceeds the death rate (in fact, births are nearly double deaths).
Simple calculation also shows that immigration accounts for only 18.6% of the new bodies (3.31 divided by 14.41 + 3.31) and slightly over a third of net U.S. population growth (3.31 divided by 14.41 + 3.31 – 8.25).
U.S. population tripled in the 20th century.
World population is expected to grow from 6 billion to over 9 billion by 2050.
The planet’s land area is not increasing. Its nonrenewable resources are being consumed. Renewable resources such as forests and fisheries are, in many cases, being overexploited or destroyed, and are declining in gross. There is an absolute limit to these resources, and as human population grows, there is less of them to go around for each human.
The liberal answer to this dilemma is adopting sustainability strategies. The right-wing answer is to redistribute resources from the weak to the strong, leaving the weak to do without. My answer to that is, fuck you.
Haiti is a failed society. Its portion of the island of Hispaniola is almost completely deforested, and unable to produce enough food to feed its population. If Haitians were cut off from the rest of the world, its excess population would simply die. But it’s not. What has happened to Haiti’s excess population? The answer is, half of all Haitians now live in other countries.
Pbj, you are utterly naive to think that human migration can be stopped, or that when human economies or societies collapse, those problems won’t be exported to other geographic areas. When populations overflow the resource base, or a country fails to feed its population because of political or social factors, the people who can’t survive there will move somewhere else.
No society, including ours, possesses the technical means or economic resources to wall itself off from the rest of the world. Refugees naturally will go from areas of shortage to areas of surplus; from areas of high population density to areas of lower population density; just as animals in nature do. Life spreads out until it occupies every available niche. An expanding human population will overwhelm political and even physical boundaries; always has, and always will. All of human history consists of migrations and new groups displacing old groups. There is no habitable patch of ground on earth that has not been occupied by successive dominant groups that pushed out predecessor groups. If the world population keeps growing, we will not be able to keep it out of our patch.
The New Guinea interior has had a self-sustaining human society, that does not need ANY trade goods from the outside world, for 46,000 years.
pjb at 66 said:
“4) Democrats are eager to pronounce our troops guilty of attrocities at such places as haditha without so much as a trial. Yet they sue the governmet through their ACLU allies to get terrorists who have murdered our troops a jury trial. Why do democrats grant terrorist, the like of which have mutliated the two troops in Iraq and clist CIA agent Johnn Span’s throat, a jury tial yet no such presumption of innocence for our troops?
”
Answer: Because we are supposed to be better than they are.
And I don’t accept your premise about Haditha. The difference is, I’m willing to consider the need for an investigation and trial, if warranted, rather than a knee-jerk reaction that “OUR TROOPS would NEVER do THAT!”. The military has already indicated, from their initial investigation, that there may be some substance to the allegations. The Iraqis (and the world) already assume that atrocities were committed, without any help from the Democrats, with the resulting damage to American influence throughout the Muslim world. That’s the real problem created by current U.S. policies (or lack of management) which Abu Grahib, Guantanimo, and CIA flights of suspects to countries who can torture with impunity, etc. – it makes all other charges more believable. The Bush administration – and Cheany & Rumsfield in particular – believe that to win this war, we have to get as dirty as our opponants. They don’t recognize that when that happens, the terrorists have already won.