radical changes are coming and the candidates can't or won't tell you

[welshTerrier2]

i watch in amazement as post after post in this forum sings the praises of one candidate or another. Did you hear Obama's plan for x? Did you see Hillary's poll numbers in South Carolina? it must be a very nice thing to be a true believer.

for many here, the mantra is all about the evils bush has brought. well, no argument there. he has virtually dismantled all that was good about our government. clearly, and I never thought anyone could top Nixon, bush is and will always remain the worst person ever to occupy the White House. but bush is "transitory". to those who think the real enemy is just bush, you're missing the bigger picture. you've allowed your legitimate disdain for him to shield you from the longer term crises we face.

and some hear arguments like this post's theme and start the drumbeat about "why do you post here" or "are you saying there's no difference between the parties" or "yeah, look at all the great things Nader brought us" ... the answer? no, that's not the point at all ...

some of us, somehow we've been labeled "the left", believe that our systems and institutions are collapsing. we believe our lifestyles can no longer be sustained. we believe our ability to procure the oil we need will soon start to fail. we believe, on a massive scale especially in the west, that water will not be available to major cities. we believe that global warming will be the final nail in all our coffins.

radical changes ARE GOING TO OCCUR in this country and they are going to occur very soon. it might be 2 years or 5 or 10 but have no doubt, they are going to occur. a rational and conservative approach to this onslaught of horrors would be to start aggressively addressing it now. we've seen elements of that in Al Gore's crusade. I commend him for what he's done. But the little changes, the incrementalism, being discussed in our electoral campaigns is woefully inadequate. the sad part is, we the people and our electoral system might well shun a candidate who even mentions the darkness we face. if our campaigns fear they are not free to lead, we find ourselves in a situation where there is no leadership. i'm afraid that is the state of the national dialog.

to take just one of many examples, what candidate will stand up and call for gas rationing? i posted a thread about that on DU and those who think themselves "liberals" were up in arms about it. how dare you impose your authoritarian restrictions on us!!!! they aren't liberals; they're libertarians.

guess what? we are seeing gas rationing happening right now. it is capitalist gas rationing. if you can't afford it, don't buy it. is that a "liberal" way to apportion gasoline to citizens? i don't think so. in the absence of quality mass transit, gasoline for many is a necessity. what do these so called liberals say to the poor? tough!!!! they have no answer. what does Obama say about gas rationing? Hillary? any of them? the point is that absent a system that fairly allocates gasoline, the rationing system is based only on PRICE. thanks very much, liberals. thanks for supporting the capitalist status quo.

the main point is that our process of electing people is badly crippled. the current system demands so much money that those who have money, the ultimate supporters of the status quo, must be catered to. any visionary trying to run would be immediately ostracized. think of it this way: if you are the candidate talking about the need for radical change, most voters don't yet see the need for that change. it would be easy to paint you as a "far lefty" or a crackpot or an extremist. does that make the vision you have wrong? of course not. it just makes you unelectable. the problem is, the rest of the candidates are all going on about how the world is flat. they're just plain wrong. but then everyone knows the world is flat. we've always known it. and so, the flat worlders and their cheerleaders live happily ever after. until they don't.

the radical changes are just around the corner. the sooner we see them and prepare for them, the less rough things will be. in the meantime, those waving their little candidate flags may not be helping the situation at all. we need to demand real answers from those seeking to lead. we cannot allow the current "status quo incrementalism" to continue. it's up to us. we only get the leadership we demand.

i hope you take the time to read this whole article ... here's an excerpt:

source: http://kunstler.com/mags_diary21.html

If nothing else, the amount of money that the candidates need to raise -- and burn through in airplane charters, staff salaries, and staged events -- puts them all in jeopardy of corrupting themselves to the various donors desperate to preserve their prerogatives under the status quo.

What everybody seems to sense semi-consciously is that the status quo is dragging the US into an abyss. But so far, no one among the declared candidates has been able or willing to express a coherent view of what it is in the status quo, exactly, that is doing the dragging. One undeclared figure, Al Gore, has presented the climate change part of the story and pretty much stopped there -- perhaps sensing that if he ventured to offer views on anything else, he'd start sounding like an actual candidate. But my guess is that the really important issues will never be articulated in the course of this campaign because they are too painful for the public to hear. And so all the premature debating and posturing will amount to a smokescreen of words meant to conceal the fact that we are a nation without confidence that any leadership can guide us into a plausible future.<skip>

Here are the some of truths that we seem unable to face:

Very soon we won't have the fossil fuel energy supplies to run the USA as it is currently set up, and no combination of wished-for alternative energy schemes based on so-called "renewables" will allow us to keep running it, either. Meaning, that we'd better start making other arrangements immediately for how we occupy the landscape, how we grow our food, how we move people and things from place to place, and how we reconstruct an economy consistent with these new arrangements.

The longer we put off making these new arrangements, the harder we're going to slam into a wall of reality, and when it occurs a lot of things will shake loose in this country. It will become self-evident that the things we've invested all our wealth in will not retain value -- especially suburban real estate and all the activities related to car dependency, from the interstate highway system to national chain retail. It will also become obvious that we can't base our economy on building more of this stuff.

Our current military adventures in the Middle East, are predicated largely on keeping the old arrangements going. We're in Iraq because we built Dallas, Atlanta, Orlando, Houston, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Long Island the way we did, and the only way we can hope to keep these organisms going even a little while longer is to keep open our oil supply line to the Persian Gulf. The truth is, these organisms will not survive the oil-scarcer future in the form they're in. The American people need to come to grips with this. No amount of chest-thumping around the globe will change it. In any case, sooner or later we'll exhaust our military and bankrupt ourselves trying to project our influence into these places overseas -- meaning, sooner or later we will withdraw back into our own hemisphere. I wonder if Wolf Blitzer of CNN will ask any of the candidates, what happens then? <skip>

Do any of the candidates for president recognize how this works, or have any idea how much disorder this phase change will send thundering through our sociopolitical infrastructure?

With the election campaign revving up so prematurely, it is very possible that all the candidates now in the arena will exhaust, bankrupt, and even disgrace their campaigns as they desperately pirouette around these painful truths, and that none of them will survive the process with their political legitimacy intact. In the meantime, unsettling events on the outside will intrude on the protective bubble in which the public has taken shelter -- more bloody disturbances around the Middle East, dangerous shenanigans in the financial markets, untoward weather events in vulnerable places. <skip>

The premature election campaign, with all its reassuring televised ceremonies of pre-cooked debate and formal posturing, may end up having the opposite of its intended effect. It may expose the more frightening reality that our political system is not up to the challenges before us. And then what will we do?

[InvisibleTouch]

1. The thing is, no matter what we do...

...we will be looking at those drastic changes. I don't think our candidates, along with the vast majority of people in the world, are fully aware of how serious the situation is. I keep signing petitions and sending what little donation I can afford to environmental/conservation groups, in hopes of saving what can be saved before the great collapse, so that there may still be something left to survive, even if human civilization does not (and it won't, in its present form). The sad truth is that only staring disaster in the face will bring about the drastic shift in thinking and lifestyle that we need. Nothing else will do it. The voices raised right now, trying to raise awareness, are paving the way and might make it a little easier when the time comes, but that's all. The time will come very soon when we'll collectively look back in utter horror to realize that we frittered away huge amounts of clean drinking water on lawns and golf courses, for instance. Some of us know right now how very warped that is - but most don't.

I guess I look for a candidate who will be able to step up and lead when that global-scale climate disaster hits. Make no mistake, the person we put in the White House in '08 will very likely be the one in that position. And while my utmost preference would be for Gore or Kucinich (both of whom know very well what's coming and know what needs to be done), it's vital that the person to lead into the new era is a Democrat. Because even if they're not fully aware right now as to what we're facing, they'll catch on quick and do the right thing. A rethug would just run in panicked circles of denial even as the world burns around him.

What can we do? Try to set up our own lives to survive what's coming. Many will not.

[welshTerrier2]

2. the best candidate: vision, truth, educating the public

the most important thing the Democratic Party can do to help the country is to start teaching the American people about the coming crisis. there's no way in hell they'll do it. but that's what the country so badly needs.

i'm afraid you're right that nothing will change until everything does change. i see job one for the Democrats as education. not arguments about No Child Left Behind and our loss in global competitiveness but rather educating the public about needing to massively re-engineer our entire society. whether we like it or not, whether it's politically viable or not, whether we address it or not, that which is ain't going to be for much longer.

i'm watching Gore. he seems to be one of the more awake "candidates". if he is a candidate. i don't have a feel for whether he would propose what's really necessary to address the problems we face. i do have a feel that he clearly sees the problems.

as for republicans just running "in panicked circles of denial", i'm not sure i agree with that. i don't see republicans as incompetent. i think their whole agenda is to let the "evil ones" squeeze the last dime and the last drop of blood out of this country. they won't allow electric cars or alternative energy sources to prosper until there is no more money to be made from oil and until they can create another centralized infrastructure, like nuclear, that they can control.

[glitch]

4. I think you have an excellent handle on both paths and players

Perhaps the decentralized path doesn't require a central leader, which is why a strong central-style leader won't necessarily appear for us. The rapid centralizing of our structure (unitary executive) won't allow for it. But maybe we don't want a single strong (autocratic patriarch) leader. Gore really does fit the times perfectly, look at the way he seeded the grassroots on the inconvenient truth and the way he truly listens to other people, even (or especially) children.

Your paragraph describes republican mindset beautifully, it is truly sad when we see it among democrats as well:

"as for republicans just running "in panicked circles of denial", i'm not sure i agree with that. i don't see republicans as incompetent. i think their whole agenda is to let the "evil ones" squeeze the last dime and the last drop of blood out of this country. they won't allow electric cars or alternative energy sources to prosper until there is no more money to be made from oil and until they can create another centralized infrastructure, like nuclear, that they can control."

[InvisibleTouch]

5. Education is the key, this is true.

And those of us - not just the Democratic Party and our announced candidates, but all of us who know what's coming - can share that knowledge with others. We won't be able to reach the whole world. We won't be able to reach even the majority of the world. But we'll be able to reach some. I run into it with my own relatives, when I tell them, "Look, this is what's coming, this is what we need to do to prepare" - and they think I'm flat-out crazy. And they're Democrats.

Here's a relevant quote from Captain Paul Watson's wonderful book "Earthforce," which I just recieved yesterday:

"No one will believe you ... But tell them anyway. Tell them once. Then tell them they have been told and leave."

That's the best we can do, at this point. That, and saving what we can.

As for the rethugs, I think their mindset simply doesn't allow them to picture what's happening - so when it does happen, they won't know how to deal with it. They have no groundwork on the matter whatsoever, whether in a personal sense or as a collective. It's like the person who has never thought about how they might escape if their home caught on fire, secure in the belief that they would never have to worry about it. Versus the person who, while maybe believing they'd probably never have to worry about it, at least let the scenario go through their minds on occasion and thought about what they might do. When it actually happens, the latter person will be more likely to survive.

That's why I say it's essential that we elect a Dem in '08, no matter who it is. I have my preferences, but I'd be happy with any one of them.

[info being]

9. I agree that the Dems need to focus on educating

If they lose with that strategy, what's really lost? If they win without fundamentally changing the way Americans think, what kind of victory is it? The time for leadership is now.

[GreenArrow]

16. the blind leading the blind

.

[Raksha]

49. Gore AND Kuchinich would actually be ideal from the POV of the earth,

and everyone who truly cares about earth's future, but I don't think it's going to happen. I'll settle for Gore and whoever the party thinks is "electable."

That's not what I want to write about, though.

And while my utmost preference would be for Gore or Kucinich (both of whom know very well what's coming and know what needs to be done), it's vital that the person to lead into the new era is a Democrat. Because even if they're not fully aware right now as to what we're facing, they'll catch on quick and do the right thing. A rethug would just run in panicked circles of denial even as the world burns around him.

I don't think a Rethug would run around in panicked circles. I believe the corporate Powers That Be are fully aware of what's coming down, every bit as much as the most aware and pro-environment progressive. Every bit as much as Gore and Kuchinich, in fact.

So why do they put so much money and effort into climate change denial? Why do they seem so intent on committing environmental suicide by polluting our environment and using up our natural resources like there's no tomorrow? It seems at times that they have a national death wish and actually believe there's no tomorrow.

But I don't think that's actually what's happening. They know that ultimately (and probably sooner rather than later) they we are going to have to face fuel rationing and all the other radical changes dealing with a global-scale environmental crisis entails.

I think they are deliberately trying to create a scenario where the American public hits the wall of reality just as hard as possible. It is in their interest to maintain their media-generated comfortable illusions right up to the minute when they collapse. They WANT us to be unprepared for what's coming, absolutely and existentially thrown off balance, because they WANT a full-blown national panic! Panic is something they understand and believe they can control.

Because what they want to do is to control the national reaction to that panic. Fearful people are easily led around by the nose, and of course manipulation through fear is a well-practiced game for the corpocrats. They are hoping a terrified nation will fall one last time for the myth of they have polished to perfection: Namely the Great White Father, the "strong" patriarchal leader who will protect them from catastrophe, or at least give them the illusion or perception of being protected from catastrophe, which to a nation truly in the grips of panic would be almost the same thing.

Catastrophic change is coming, and they know it as well as we do. There is really ONLY choice left: is who ends up directing that change, and the corpocrats are trying to set it up so it will be THEM.

I don't think they will succeed, because while America's national attention span may be shortened as a result of the barrage of propaganda they have been subjected to for decades, it isn't and can't be THAT short. People aren't going to forget who lied them into a false sense of security. Rather than turning in desperation to Big Brother, they are gonna want to string Big Brother up by his gonads.

[bjobotts]

54. Let's get this party started>>>>1..2...3

It's all inevitable but it's not that we don't have the answers. It's the will and the motivation.

1) Number one and most important is Campaign Finance Reform...taking big profits and corporate money out of the election process. Bush's GOP era has brought out into the open and to the public's attention the indebtness candidates acquire to corporations with cronyism run amuck. Buy 'em, bribe 'em or black-mail 'em and then demand pay back. We can't even touch corporate reform till we get campaign finance reform and it's coming...slowly. More and more the people and the candidates are complaining that it shouldn't cost millions to run for office. They see the media corporations making major profits from campaigns and sponsors and advertisers. It's our airways, elections are for the good of and the operation of our government. It should be free. Reform means only so much can be spent and taxpayers pay a yearly tax to support them. K-street should basically be emptied.(Pharmacy corps. should be prevented from having over a thousand lobbyists for example)
Candidates could run for office without having to be catering to special interests. Some reform bills are appearing on the senate and house floors (yes, they are virtually worthless but at least attention is being drawn to that issue).

2) Attitude...we are the parade. One person sharing with another is how it starts. A year ago "peak oil" was a phrase unheard of. 3yrs ago "global warming" was being totally ignored. Right now people are coming around to knowing that terrorism is an excuse for war profiteering, that it's used to promote fear in order to manipulate personal freedoms and neocon policies. We are beginning to shrug off the fear mongering and the policies and corruption it engendered. We are becoming more aware, alert and not so easily fooled or manipulated. The parade is gathering that says you are all full of shit. This is our country, not a corporate planned community. This is our Democracy and it will no longer tolerate unregulated capitalism trying to turn us into worker ants. We can no longer tolerate that which is killing us, the rape and exploitation of earth for profit. We can no longer live in the "happy motoring" denial of failed energy policies. We are the parade that will learn to adjust, adapt, and compromise with the necessity of an entire lifestyle change. Now who wants to get in front of this parade because doom and gloom has held us back long enough.

3)I know (with complete cooperation and all things under my direction and control) how to solve or successfully cope with all of our problems. What must be done and how to go about doing it. Don't you? Think about it. We have all the money and personnel. Think about it. I'm too tired to post it right now so think about it. It's easy, when you think about it.

[mike_c]

3. K&R-- excellent post and article....

I could not agree more. While the candidates and the political parties are spending BILLIONS to project their hand wringing about the veneer of American life to a TV enthralled culture, the underlying structure is failing rapidly, and few are paying attention.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

[nannah]

6. any visionary trying to run would be immediately ostracized: Kucinich

I agree totally with what you are saying. Our thoroughly bribed leadership on both sides of the aisle cow tow to their funders in all important issues.

Healthcare is so obvious it whacks you over the head, all the candidates seems to want to keep the parasite health insurance industry feeding on the corpse of american health care except Kucinich. Yet when Kucinich presents his comprehensive plan with the funding explained, he is erased from the discussion.

In discussions about the last debate, he was not even mentioned as having been there by newscasters. The same thing happened last election. I don't think his erasure is random. I have believed for some time, his erasure is due to the threat he offers to the entrenched power set on both sides; he is a visionary, and if his ideas and plans can be widely distributed, heard, and discussed, people will be able to act in their own self interest, instead of letting themselves be herded over a cliff in the interest of corporate power.

[DemReadingDU]

7. People don't want to hear the truth, bad news

But really, if people listen to Kucinich, he is the candidate who is speaking to what this country needs to do

[DemBones DemBones]

8. Exactly. The media will entertain them with

things of less importance and marginalize Kucinich because they know his message would win a lot of support.

So he's derided as a vegan and a peace nut and Dana Milbank mentioned his height and hair in a recent column. (In 2004, the media were all over Dennis about his mop of flyaway hair. Now Milbank was dissing him for having Bryllcream on his hair so that it wouldn't blow in the wind. This was in Milbank's coverage of Kucinich's press conference announcing his bill to impeach Cheney. Dennis's hair and height had exactly what to do with impeaching Cheney?)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. One of the most enlightening and discouraging experiences of my life

was volunteering for the Kucinich campaign in 2004.

Even given the exceedingly minor role I played, I saw how hard it was for him to get positive news coverage. The corporate media either actted as if he didn't exist or made fun of him. Yet on each of his trips to the Twin Cities, he spoke to increasingly larger and more enthusiastic crowds and ended up with 17% of the vote in Minnesota, all due to massive efforts by about 30 volunteers.

In the areas where he had well-organized volunteers, he broke into the double digits, and in some unexpected places, too, like Ashland, Wisconsin, while doing his usual 3% in solidly leftist Madison, where there was no strong organization. Similarly, he got 13% in Washington State, but only 3% in Oregon, which went 39% for Jesse Jackson in 1988.

This experience has made me pessimistic about the chances for a soft landing in this country. When a candidate who was so RIGHT (in the sense of "correct") on all the issues was so marginalized and outright ridiculed by the DLC crowd and couldn't get non-trivial news coverage, and when we were all roped into voting for Kerry, who ran an inept campaign and didn't even fight for his own voters, I lost a lot of my enthusiasm for electoral politics, at least as it's practiced in this country.

The utter wimpitude of the current Democratic Congress is another deep disappointment, although, frankly, not an unexpected one. Before the last election, I warned the rah-rah-we're-going-to-take-Congress types that it would all be meaningless if the Dems didn't DO something with their power.

[nannah]

50. hi lydia, i had a similar experience in WA.

many people who did not usually do democratic party activities came into the 2004 presidential primary to be Kucinich delegates and then to work on platform development.

what is interesting is the pervasive "shut out" of Kucinich in the media, i have believed it is because if his message got out to the "masses" they would embrace his message. to me, that is the reason they make such an effort to erase him. i can't think of why else it might be? any thoughts?

[nannah]

13. one of the weirdest elements of our culture is our issue with change

there seems to be some emphasis placed on not "doing change". I hear people talking about this all the time, like change is some big boogey man rather than an integral element of being alive. being alive is change. the only time you will cease having change in your life is when you are dead.

rather than fearing change and rigidly combating forces of change, we need to be acculturated to feel comfortable flowing with change. I don't mean this in a woo woo metaphysical aspect, but as an acculturated and conditioned response to the flow of life's changes; the purpose to foster the adaptability that is so much a key to species survival.

From this perspective, look forward to life in a more local context related to goods and services and with a global context for understanding the physical parameters of the earth and how this information can nurture a rich, symbiotic environment on earth.

Imagine,

we cease warring over rigid boundaries and rigid dependence on diminishing, destructive resources

and combine the world's wealth of genius for the benefit of all.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. You know, I wonder if the Democrats were split up for the

faith discussion on CNN primarily in order to limit Kucinich's exposure.

Biden, Dodd, and Richardson are less of a threat to business as usual than Kucinich.

Maybe the truth is that Dennis was the one they didn't want to have 15 minutes on stage in front of a live audience, so they put all four of them in second class with Paula Zahn, no audience, for six minutes each.

It's so obvious how they marginalize Dennis, and how much face time the Big Three get.

In the GOP, they are marginalizing Ron Paul. I need to know more about Ron Paul, but as of now,

I think I could go for a Kucinich/Paul peace ticket.

[info being]

12. Kucinich and Paul are NOT like-minded

Paul would be against single-payer healthcare and is a small government guy. They probably only agree on foriegn policy...so maybe there would be a place for Paul in a Kucinich administration...but not on a shared ticket.

OK back to earth now.

[welshTerrier2]

14. time allocation in the debates

we tend to view our candidates like gladiators. we throw them into the ring and the last one standing wins. it's every man for himself. it's a contest of INDIVIDUALS.

that kind of process is killing us.

a better approach would be to have a real debate of ideas. not little teensy weensy incremental ideas but GREAT BIG IDEAS.

i would divide the time equally between those pushing the status quo, i.e. the majority of the candidates, and those calling for meaningful change. if we have 95% status quo candidates and give them 95% of the time, or even more, change becomes less and less possible and the status quo becomes more and more entrenched and reinforced.

again, our political system prohibits a real national dialog on the problems that confront us. given that, our future looks very dark indeed.

[Lethe]

31. Kucinich actually had to fight to be included in the Faith segment

originally they had him totally excluded from the segment. (only Clinton, Obama and Edwards) Kucinich demanded that he and the other candidates be allowed time to speak.

[glowing]

70. He has some good ideas. I think he knows what is going on

and tries to tell people..which is why we like him, but he I don't agree that keeping out health in the hands of private corporations is the way to go. When I heard that, I could not support him. Sometimes we have to bring a little bit of socialism into the mix because it helps more than it hurts. Corporations shouldn't play God with people's lives. They've proven to me they can't handle a system that is fair and just.

I really want universal health care. It would be the key to revitalizing America. How many people would take the risk of venturing out on their own. Main-street America would be back. Small business companies that make things would be back. The small farmer would be back. To me, its the key. Kucinich's plan is good. Every other candidate's still play with coproratizing our lives.

[info being]

11. Of course

In a liberal European country, for example, the election would be between Kucinich and Paul. The problem is that the vast majority of Americans don't see the obvious situation we are in. The sun is still shining, the grass is still green, and the malls are still open. So when someone like Kucinich comes around...they scratch their collective heads and wonder what he's going on about.

[femrap]

15. Thx for the great post....

It's a damn shame that the American people can't bear the Truth...it hurts so they go into denial.

Those in the know need to plan an Exit Strategy....

[polichick]

18. Yeah, denial is powerful stuff...

The most effective drug of all ~ and it's free!

[welshTerrier2]

19. well, no ...

actually, it's the most expensive drug of all ... it only appears to be free ...

[polichick]

21. Ha! Good point...

But if we had to pay $100 each time we loaded up on denial, things might change.

[Raksha]

56. I think we probaby do pay $100 (at least)

every time we load up on denial. We just haven't made all the connections yet.

[snappyturtle]

30. If you're thinking of self-reliance, wind power may not be an

option is H.R. 2337 gets a foot hold:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[polichick]

17. Thanks for posting about the truth...

Unfortunately Americans aren't into the truth. The truth is a hard sell ~ an almost impossible sell. Few addicts can be educated out of their addictions ~ and this is a society addicted to a lifestyle that cannot be sustained. Might take hitting rock bottom.

[snappyturtle]

23. For those of us thinking about taking care of ourselves the best

we can...becoming as self-sustaining as possible...it seems that those who govern have other ideas in mind:

WIND POWER TO BE MADE ILLEGAL IN USA? (May 21, 2007) Yep. There's a House Resolution:

http://www.relocalize.net/wind_power_to_be_made_illegal...

Introduced this week by Congressman Nick Rahall (D. WV), and scheduled for action in early June at the House Resources Committee which he chairs, H.R. 2337 would burden wind power with sweeping new requirements that have never applied to other energy sectors, Swisher said, noting:
-- Subtitle D of the bill would direct the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to review every existing and planned wind project, a mandate far beyond the agency's resources and capabilities, and criminalize operation of wind energy facilities not formally certified by USFWS.
-- Under the legislation, landowners and farmers with wind turbines on their property would be subject to invasive inspection requirements.
-- Landowners and farmers could face jail time or a $50,000 penalty for putting a wind turbine, regardless of whether it is for personal use or of a commercial scale, on their property without certification by the USFWS director.
A hearing in the House Natural Resources Committee is scheduled for May 23 on the bill. "This bill is an unprecedented threat to clean, renewable energy," said Swisher. "It would undermine an essential piece of the global warming solution. Wind energy is the one readily deployable, cost-effective option we have available to meet this challenge, and Rep. Rahall's proposal would put a massive roadblock in its path."

More at link........

Petition to Veto the ban on wind power (H.R. 2337): http://www.petitiononline.com/rme4319/petition.html

BTW: Welcome to DU!

Edit lease email or call your Representative to request that he or she oppose the Subtitle D Anti-Wind Energy Section of H.R. 2337.

[polichick]

24. Thanks snappyturtle!

Interesting that Congressman Rahall is from WV ~ ain't that coal country?

[snappyturtle]

25. Yep! Interesting. This is just one of those little sections of a

bill that's little known and being tucked in to protect coal, I guess. The big REASON is to protect birds and bats.....many more killed by cats and pane glass windows! I just edited my bigger reply...you might want to take a peek. Think this deserves its own post?

[polichick]

26. I'll call my guy...

Yes, I definitely think this deserves its own thread ~ I didn't know about it and I'll bet many others don't. And here I've been so thrilled about the wind power movement!

[snappyturtle]

28. OK...I'll post it...thanks for your input. We're excited about

wind power. I saw a PBS program on wind power farms in Germany....it's not a complete solution but it's an enormous help!

[NotGivingUp]

57. this definitely deserves its own post and to be talked about in gd...

not hidden away. and IMO...petitions and phone calls aren't doing a damn thing.

[CRH]

20. Good Post, ...

there are many that post on DU who seem comfortably ignorant of the social, cultural and political train wreck fast approaching. The tunnel vision of replacing Bush with a democrat and this will solve most our problems, is overwhelming. So very few here realize, it is their very own lifestyles that stand in the way of political and cultural change, that is demanded for a sustainable future. And, this is a political forum, where one would normally consider the posters to be a better politically informed cross section of the general public.

As you have mentioned only one political figure has attempted to shatter the illusion of everlasting artificial affluence. An affluence derived from frivolous consumption of resources on a finite planet. An affluence that depends for sustenance, on a conceptually flawed need of an ever expanding economy. Even Al Gore dare not tell the whole truth of the entire demands of change upon our society and culture. This would lead to losing much of his forum to a character assassination painting the persona of a leftest loony dooms-day-er, suggesting the need to completely re organize and retool our society, economy and lifestyles, pursuing sustainable models.

Al Gore for all his daring has scarcely touched on the third challenge in the trilogy of demand on a sustainable future. Along with depletion of fossil fuel energy, and global warming and changing climates and eco systems, is also the politically untouchable issue of population control. Population in fifty years has over doubled and still has not plateaued, and has long passed sustainable levels. Yet to broach this subject one must challenge the edicts of religions long since out dated by science and circumstance, yet still flourishing with political influence.

For a sustainable future on the planet we not only have to contract our individual consumption, and our collective economies, but we must also contract the global population; and just who is going to volunteer not to procreate, and just who is going to volunteer to fore go life preserving care in extension of their temporal being. Don't look for either religions or benevolent common sense, to lead the enlightened charge to human salvation. Most of all, search not for a political solution or political savior. It is a sad, but sustainable, reality and truth.

Still viewing this pessimistic reality, I always find myself hoping beyond all logic, that we would as a people at least try to find a peaceful solution in passage through the temporal physical plane. Dreaming no matter how bereft of reality, does provide a small portion of anesthetic.

edit: word order for clarity

[welshTerrier2]

22. great themes; great writing

very impressive, CRH!! a great big welcome to DU ...

i read this in your profile and thought it was great: "How can a society blinded by and addicted to frivolous consumption, understand, controlling the 'primary budget' of life on earth is not their right by manifest destiny?"

it's a haunting question to ponder ...

[CRH]

27. Thank you for the welcome, ...

I have enjoyed the perspective garnered from your posts.

K/R

[mnhtnbb]

32. You nailed the elephant in the room: population control

[KamaAina]

39. I know that electing a Dem in '08 won't solve all our problems

but at least it'll buy us some time, as opposed to another repuke who will be actively trying to run the country into the ground. Therefore, I'll be voting for the Dem nominee, even if s/he isn't my choice in the primaries.

[venable]

29. excellent post, and all so true

finally we must do what the OP says and sit back, far back, and look at the realities. it is very sobering.

[Vidar]

33. K&R.

[nam78_two]

34. K&R.nt

[lostnotforgotten]

35. Related Read - Garden Planet

http://www.amazon.com/GARDEN-PLANET-Present-Change-Spec...

[welshTerrier2]

38. very interesting ... thanks ...

it sounds like he's got the right program but i didn't see anything in the Amazon blurb about how to seize power from the corporate state that prevents the vision he espouses ... i'll check it out though ... it sounds very interesting ... thank you ...

from Joni Mitchell:

We are stardust
Billion year old carbon
We are golden
Caught in the devils bargain
And we've got to get ourselves
Back to the garden

and from Kate Wolf:

we are crying for a vision
that all living things can share
and those who care
are with us everywhere

[Raksha]

36. K & R - Great article and great blog (the CF Chronicles).

I remember the name Jim Kunstler from the Sixties and early Seventies. Seems like I should know a lot more about him than I do...I'm old enough, after all!

[welshTerrier2]

42. do you mean William Kunstler?

he was one of the defense attorneys during the Chicago 7 trial ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kunstler

[Raksha]

60. Thanks for the Wikipedia link. Yes, I did confuse him

with William Kunstler. Do you happen to know if they're related? The Wikipedia article didn't mention any of William Kunstler's children or other relatives.

[slipslidingaway]

37. K&R n/t

[uberllama42]

40. This is a very important point.

You have stated a simple truth: our current national way of life is not sustainable. Out patterns of consumption are destructive and will be the death of us if we do not make some changes soon. But everyone seems afraid to say anything. In fact, there are several dire problems with this nation that very few are willing to discuss.

One of these is the fact that democacry is dead. We sent the current Congress to Washington with one very simple, very clear goal: end the war. They chosen not to do it. It has become evident that there is absolutely nothing that the average American can do to affect national policy - he or she has no say in the government. This is not right. But somehow no one wants to talk about it.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

41. Nothing to see here folks

Vote Obama/Clinton/DLC/Richardson 2008!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. You are so right, Welshterrier2!

The changes are coming. Pretending that they're not happening won't make them go away. They're coming to us no matter what.

The question is, do we ignore them until it's too late, so that we suffer a catastrophic hard landing, as our whole society falls apart?

Or do we prepare for likely scenarios, so that we have a soft landing and gradually adjust to the coming changes?

The current crop of candidates is infuriating in their refusal to face these challenges, and even Al Gore stops short of telling the whole truth, that we will have to change our entire way of life.

I have lived under greatly reduced living standards, both as a graduate student in an expensive city, and as a student in Japan thirty years ago, when its standard of living was far less comfortable than it is now. Both periods were happy times in my life, because I had what counted far more than Stuff: good friends, interesting work, and lots of new and challenging experiences. In fact, I was happier as an impoverished grad student or as a foreign student in Japan living in a one-room apartment without central heating or a private bath, than I was later as a college professor in a comfortable two-bedroom apartment in what everyone referred to as a "lovely little town."

Where are the candidates to tell us, "You will have to give up your jumbo houses and your jumbo cars, but you will be happier and healthier in the end"? Where are the candidates to tell us, "Eating local food may seem expensive, but it's cheaper in the long run"? Whnere are the candidates to tell us, "You will give up your cheap crap from the mall, but you will discover the satisfaction and pride of making do with what you have and the joys of creating your own fun"? Where are the candidates to tell us, "Suburban sprawl is killing the planet and inflicting the worst of both worlds on humanity--the isolation and inconvenience of the country and the crowding and pollution of the city"?

Where are the candidates who will figuratively slam us against the wall and tell us what's what?

[welshTerrier2]

45. "you can have your cake and eat it too"

and it's not just the candidates either ... it all of us ... wouldn't it be nice if we were lucky enough to have leaders in our party to rally the masses and tackle the challenges ...

i saw the speech John Kerry gave to the National Press Club today. Then I heard a speech by Amy Klobuchar. Both of them are very knowledgeable on energy policy. Both were articulate and made all sorts of great points. I'm fairly certain neither one of them even mentioned the word "conservation." we cannot have our cake and eat it too ... sacrifices must be made; we're in a war here and in a deadly race against time ...

whether we can make major strides with new technology and new science is not the issue. whether we set aggressive goals to move from the burning of fossil fuels to fuels from renewable sources is also not the issue. the issue is that we face a crisis NOW and we need to do more than encourage the next wave of technology to save us from ourselves. we can make real changes today. we can start to re-engineer our society starting today. living in harmony with the planet is not something we should be waiting around for until better sources of energy are devised.

btw, i think it's also important to note that there are disasters heading our way beyond environmental disasters. we cannot sustain the American people and hand away our national treasure to corporate marauders. when a wildly disproportionate share of our national budget is sucked into the military-industrial-complex, we lack the health care we deserve. we lack schools that are competitive with the rest of the world. we lack peace.

and financially, all we've done is borrow and borrow and borrow. what bean counter would endorse such a financial plan?

pile all that on top of a political system that vehemently defends the status quo and, even if we can see the way, and I'm afraid not enough of us do, we can't seem to get there from here. it seems to me we have to somehow reach into the power structure, in our case the Democratic Party, and awaken them and embolden them to speak to all Americans from their lofty platforms. the energy can come from the grassroots but in the long run I think we need the power of government, at least those we hope will represent us in government, to join our cause.

[brer cat]

44. Maybe they remember Jimmy Carter.

He had the knowledge, wisdom, and courage to say that changes must be made...and how many people were receptive to him? I think we would be living in a very different world if President Carter had served two terms and had support on the Hill.

[Old and In the Way]

55. You are absolutely correct.

Carter understood the dangers of dependency on ME oil as our primary source of energy. He made the DOE part of his cabinet, added solar panels/HW heaters to the WH, and counseled the American people to start conserving energy. What did our Republican media and Reagan/Bush do? They made Carter the laughing stock. After Bush/Reagan sold out the hostages to get the office, they began selling us out. By negotiating cheap oil, dismantling the DOE, and sink alternative/renewable energy markets. Bush and his oil buds made lots of money on this strategy, but the bill is coming due now. Oil is becoming scarce relative to cost to produce and the demand continues to go up. That's why we invaded and will occupy Iraq indefinitely...these same people think we can kill our way out of our energy dependency. But the costs continue to grow, trillions spent, thousands of soldiers dead, 100's of thousands of Iraqis dead, and our international reputation destroyed.

Worse, Bush and his taxcuts have made it impossible for the next President to create a new economy not based on oil. The $400BB Clinton left in the Treasury and the $1TT Bush has spent on Iraq and a bloated military budget means there's no money to reinvest in a new post-oil economy and infrastructure here. And no jobs to create it. The Democrat who wins has to do 2 things - articulate a vision for the future where the top 5% who benefited from the taxcuts by Republicans will now have to sacrifice and accept higher taxes to invest in a 21st century America and put this money into job creation and infrastructure overhaul to eliminate our dependency on ME oil. Our national security is contingent on a sound domestic energy policy that invests in this country's future. It is an opportunity as well as a challenge...we need a Democrat, maybe Gore, to articulate this vision to the American people.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. You know, if I could go back in time one thing I'd do is tell Carter to bomb Tehran...

As a response to the hostage crisis.

It wasn't a good idea back then and it still isn't a good idea, but if it could've kept Reagan from winning that election, then it would be worth it. The lives lost in the bombing of Tehran would be far less than the lives that have been lost because of Reagan's rise to power.

[Auggie]

62. Those changes are going to be damn interesting to watch

It'll be like the Industrial Revolution in reverse.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. It is in my nature to look for something with which I disagree.

I found it.

to take just one of many examples, what candidate will stand up and call for gas rationing? i posted a thread about that on DU and those who think themselves "liberals" were up in arms about it. how dare you impose your authoritarian restrictions on us!!!! they aren't liberals; they're libertarians.

guess what? we are seeing gas rationing happening right now. it is capitalist gas rationing. if you can't afford it, don't buy it. is that a "liberal" way to apportion gasoline to citizens? i don't think so. in the absence of quality mass transit, gasoline for many is a necessity. what do these so called liberals say to the poor? tough!!!! they have no answer. what does Obama say about gas rationing? Hillary? any of them? the point is that absent a system that fairly allocates gasoline, the rationing system is based only on PRICE. thanks very much, liberals. thanks for supporting the capitalist status quo.

We ration gasoline on the same basis that we ration plasma TV's. On price. If you can't afford it you don't buy it. Plasma TV's and Gasoline are dissimilar to health care in an important way - health care is (or at least should be) a human right. Gasoline is not. No one has a human right to cheap gas.

[Maven]

51. "No one has a human right to cheap gas"

This is either callous, or short-sighted. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter.

Maybe no one has a human right to cheap gas, but I believe that warm shelter and freedom from hunger are human rights, and the living arrangements we've chosen give rise to an infrastructure and a social order that require access to cheap gas to function properly. The way we produce and the way we consume are both dependent on the availability of cheap fossil fuels, and without radical changes to our living arrangement and economy many people will find themselves without adequate food or warm shelter once fuel is too costly for them to afford.

So while your statement is true, it's not the whole truth. In fact, it encapsulates the grave error of markets-will-save-us thinking in the face of peak oil's onset.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. on the contrary

rising gas prices are catalyzing consumer interest in conservation.

The living arrangements we've chosen have created the social order that is, in itself, the problem. Delaying the time at which the car culture comes crashing down around our shoulders does no good.

Markets aren't going to save us (if "save us" means preventing us from experiencing its unavailability) any more than socialist fuel distribution will.

[Maven]

67. Well, I agree, except

while at a certain point everyone will want to conserve, it will not be possible for all to conserve and to maintain. Not everyone can afford to go out and buy a Prius, and they may still have to travel 70 miles to get to a job in order to feed their families. And the public transit system in this country is a joke. Point is, some will have much harder landings than others, and it may be advantageous to subsidize fuel in order to smooth the transition and avoid the poverty and social unrest that may result. (Actually, "social unrest" may be putting it mildly. I wonder how many of those worst affected own guns?)

But I agree that delaying the transition is just worsening the problem.

[bobbolink]

82. I vote for callous, because I see it all the time with "liberals"

All they can see is their own muddleclass situation, and don't give a rip what happens to poor folk.

Gas a luxury???? Right, because they know *THEY* will be OK, just like richer people.

They want the sacrifices to be made by those below them.

So what if poor people can no longer even AFFORD to get to work. Big deal. They'll disappear and we won't have to think about 'em anymore.

So what if the resultant food prices mean poor folk can no longer eat anything except ramen (with no nutrition). Let 'em eat cake!

I've seen it and heard it continually here on DU and among "liberals" outside DU.

Callousness.

Studies have been posted on DU that shows exactly what I'm saying... that rising prices WILL NOT CHANGE CONSUMPTION!!

That bears repeating RISING PRICES WILL NOT CHANGE CONSUMPTION HABITS!

Learn The Facts!

All it will change is that people who haven't ANY money will not be able to survive. Their consumption will go down, all right. Because They'll Be DEAD.

Will our deaths even be recognized by liberals?

I sincerely doubt it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. That is why I keep advocating for transit

I hate cars, but I don't want to see driving made impossible until there are alternatives.

In Japan and most of Europe, even the poorest people can get around easily without driving.

[bobbolink]

91. Japan and Europe are considerably different than the US

But, I think you know that.
However, there is also this to consider:

Also, there is considerably more concern for others in those countries than now exists in the US.

Here's two things to think about....

What about women who clean houses for a living? They must get to a different house every 2, 3 or 4 hours, and what time they lose waiting for a bus means they don't get paid. They could conceivably lose a job every day because of the time factor. What about them? Tough?

What about people who live in their cars? I suppose they can live in a bus? Or a subway?

What I'm getting at is that I'm *very* perturbed that muddleclass people seem to only be able to think either about their own situation, or about the "common" situations. That, usually, leaves out people of less means, and very poor people.

[happygoluckytoyou]

48. TIME FOR THE arnold CONSTRUCTION SONG LYRICS

We need a man that is simple perfection
There's nothing that's harder to find
Someone to lead us protect us and feed us
And help us to make up our minds
We need a man that's sophisticated
Quiet and strong and well educated
Where to go what to do
Could it be somebody super like you?

We need a man that can stand as a symbol
And symbols have got to be tall
Someone with taste and the tiniest waist
With his help would not life be a ball
If we had fun he would not restrain us
If we got caught he would just explain us
Where to go what to do
Could it be somebody super like you?

We pledge allegiance to his gracefulness
And charming manners
With a voice that's both sides choice
He'll bring us to our knees in admiration
He is king of all who see and hear
His perfect pitch and more surprises
When his time is come a stallion rises

We need a man with a head on his shoulders
A nose that is simply divine
Hollywood smile and a perfect profile
And with eyes that would sparkle and shine
Long flowing hair for a crowning glory
There'd be a man who could tell our story
Where to go what to do
Could it be somebody super like you?

We pledge allegiance to his gracefulness
And charming manners
With a voice that's both sides choice
He'll bring us to our knees in admiration
He is king of all who see and hear
His perfect pitch and more surprises
When his time is come a stallion rises
Rises...rises...rises

[NashVegas]

53. There Are So Many Elephants (not talking GOP) In the Room

and no one dares ...

[NotGivingUp]

58. Excellent post! I only wish it wasn't so true. k&r! nt

[Robeson]

59. Wonderful post....

...one of the easiest "recommends" I've ever made...

[bonito]

63. Thanks for this eye prying open, post

I've been following your link and then some, I learn more from the painful truth than what pleases me, at the same time folks, listen up I'll share with you something very, very important,

Forget the past, take from it only what you can benefit from in the present.

The present, well that's all there really is, you can only consume what's on the plate in front of you period, good that.

Plane for the future from what you learned in the past, in reality it's not, and may never be.

rant off gonna dig up dead poets society with Robin Williams and watch it again.

[northamericancitizen]

64. K and R.

[liberaltrucker]

65. Kudos for the most thought-provoking post ever on DU

Having read the replies and checked out most of the links, I've
come to the conclusion that the relative newbie CRH (#20) has hit
it put of the park. We are the only species on the planet that understands
it's own mortality. We have the knowledge to control our population. If
we don't, Nature most surely will, as it does with any overpopulated species.

Energy consumption, from whatever source, is irrelevant. Overpopulation will
get us long before any human caused environmental catastrophe will.

While it's true we must also confront more immediate issues, energy being only
one, the very survival of our species is at stake if we don't limit our population.

But given religious and cultural value of producing progeny, I don't hold out
much hope.

[bobbolink]

81. By control the population, you mean getting rid of poor folk.

Not only in the US, which our current practices will accomplish just fine, but world-wide.

That's what we're doing now, and what liberals are quite content with.

Just leave the middleclass alone, and throw us poor folk under the bus.

Problem solved.

[defendandprotect]

66. Sadly and totally agree --

True, we don't know just when -- but I don't think that 2 to 5 years is extreme.
We are certainly already feeling many of these changes -- August in May here in NJ.

Whether humans will have the will to try to save the planet even if our species is going down will test our true spirituality.

At one point, it was presumed that the planet would keep turning; quite some years ago, it became clear no one could be sure. When Gore testified to Congress recently, he began by talking about the planet increasingly "shaking."

We are decades behind on responding to Global Warming --
#1 is the problem that our natural resources are in the hands of a few private families.
#2 -- Where is Gore talking about electric cars?
We can have electric cars on our roads in mere weeks!!
See: "Who Killed the Electric Car?"

It's an awful analogy, but I don't think there is any one more fitting than the frog sitting in warm water -- pre-boil. We have to have the common sense to "jump out" while we can.

We can raise corporations to build electric cars if GM and the oil companies don't want to permit it.
We can subsidize purchases and retire gasoline-driven automobiles.
What's saving the planet worth?

The distraction of WAR is obviously needed to keep Americans from thinking much about these things.
Notice what threads are mainly about --

NOT the environment -- !!!!

[KG]

68. well, yeah.

some of us 'irellevant leftists' can see the big picture, politics beyond cheering for the home team, and for us replacing a pro-war, pro-corporate repook with a pro-war, pro-corporate dem just won't cut it.

[OzarkDem]

69. Thanks for saying it

Like others, I'm concerned about the stultifying effect of big money in campaigns these days. Is it really worth the private jets and oriental rugs in the field campaign offices (the latest extravagance that had me shaking my head) when it means the issues and message get watered down?

The latest Dem vote in Congress on the Iraq appropriations shows its not just campaign issues being watered down and sanitized by big money in campaigns, its also happening in the way we are governed.

[rodeodance]

71. and like gas-we have always had a rationing of health care:

...guess what? we are seeing gas rationing happening right now. it is capitalist gas rationing. if you can't afford it, don't buy it. is that a "liberal" way to apportion gasoline to citizens? i don't think so. in the absence of quality mass transit, gasoline for many is a necessity. what do these so called liberals say to the poor? tough!!!! they have no answer. what does Obama say about gas rationing? Hillary? any of them? the point is that absent a system that fairly allocates gasoline, the rationing system is based only on PRICE. thanks very much, liberals. thanks for supporting the capitalist status quo.

[iamahaingttta]

72. Out of great turmoil, comes great changes.

Our current consumer based system was born out of the ashes of World War2. What system will be born from the current turmoil? I fear it will be much worse than what we have now!

[mistertrickster]

73. Does this post have a topic? Vague forbodings of future doom

or something?

[Auggie]

74. Just candidates? Try nearly every elected politician...

[blm]

75. This may be your best posting yet, wt.

Touches every truth nerve.

[Nederland]

76. All I needed to see was the name Kunstler

And I knew the whole post was a waste of time.

That man is a fearmongerer and a scam artist and you sadly have fallen for him hook line and sinker.

[The_Progressive]

77. We need to be Progressive about gasoline.

There will be no rationing of gasoline. It will continue to go up in price. It's a matter of supply and demand. China and India are buying more and more cars. The oil companies are refusing to build new refineries to meet the rise in demand, thus limiting supply. An increase in demand, a fixed supply, abracadabra, you get rising prices.

The republicans will tell you that the market will work itself out. Don't believe it. It will work itself out better for those driving 2007 Mercedes Benz S500's than those families driving 1997 Dodge Caravans.

Our democratic friends will try reduce the cost to consumers through price controls. Bad idea - will lead to gas lines and shortages.

The better idea is to madate all cars sold in the US must achieve 30 mpg starting 2009. No if, ands, or buts. There is no reason that anyone needs to tool around in an SUV. If people want SUVs, make them 30 mpg hybrids and charge $50K each for them. Let's get a fleet of cars on the roads that don't waste gasoline.

[MindPilot]

78. Doomsday scenarios have been preached as long as I can remember

At with the exception of George Bush, none of them have come to pass. Yet.

I agree that replacing a pro-war, corporate welfare R with a pro-war, corporate welfare D isn't going to get us much in the way of progress.

Whether the apocalypse will befall us in two years or a hundred or never, who knows? I over fifty and I've heard all the optimists and pessimists; everything from electricity-to-cheap-to-meter to cars will be outlawed by 2000.

I wonder if actual leadership is a thing of the past. Whatever the real underlying problem is; the bottom line is we have to quit waiting for a messiah in the form of a presidential candidate, and start fixing these problems ourselves.

[JNelson6563]

79. A most excellent rant

100% right!

As I've been reading Assault on Reason, and looking at what we DUers have long known to be true, I can't help but think of The Good Earth. In that book the main character started out as a young man seeking to make his fortune in life. As he made progress he had an aunt and uncle to contend with and he foresaw what a great pain in the ass they would be. He arranged for them to be introduced to the joys of opium and Voila! They remained fully occupied with their addiction, happy to stay out of the way and get high. That's what the oligarchs remind me of. We the people are the bothersome relatives and they have so many of us strung out on consumerism/materialism.

Anyway, back to your post, great stuff! Bravo!!

Julie

[OHdem10]

80. When Former Vice Chair of Federal Reserve warns of

45 MILLION, job dislocations, we get no response on this
board.

Especially when the job dislocations are described as
Hi Tech and Professional workers.

Ho Hum. I love to live poor==I suppose is the response

[bobbolink]

83. Thank you so much for stating the obvious!

I can only guess that it's fear, more fear and the ever-present "me, my mine" attitude that keeps people from seeing the obvious!

I want to speak specifically to your statements about gas rationing. I've been saying the same thing for years (and also about water rationing!), and get nothing but disdain from liberals. (Same about health care--which is also rationed by price.)

It's clear, very, very clear, that liberals are just fine with rationing as long as it doesn't affect them. As long as it's only affecting us poor folk, and things can go on as normal for the rest, they are all happy. It's clear that liberals are quite willing to sacrifice poor people, and close their eyes to the deaths.

It's only wwwwaaaaarrrrr deaths that count.

I can't even begin to express how much it hurts, and how invisible and just plain unwanted I feel.

I know I'm being thrown under the bus, by people who are smiling and waving at me while they're doing it, and it HURTS.

Please keep talking about rationing!

Please enlist all those who are also seeing this elemental truth!

Please, all of you, understand how you are ignoring and hurting those of us who being sacrificed.

Some of us know we can't survive, know we're being discarded, and left with nothing but figuring out how we're going to have to remove ourselves from the planet. That's all that will be left to us.

Please... don't leave us alone in this--SPEAK OUT!!

[OHdem10]

86. You are right--Some Liberals have the same

mindset as some Republicans. They seem to assume
our country is always going to be the same and
no one has to do anything. It will take care of
itself. Or that is going to be so far in the future
we don't have to worry about it.

I keep trying to bring the situation to the fore.
It can be frightening. I do not want people to be
frightened. I want them to use judgment about
how best to protect themselves and their assets.

Most of all I want everyone to remember Congressmen
or Senators who show any effort to try to "head things
off". I am sorry I cannot believe they do know
we are going to hit some very rough patches if I
find these things. Let the free market work its will
Let Free Trade Flow---are not the answers.

[bobbolink]

90. "I want them to use judgement about how best to protect themselves and their assets"

And that's where you leave out poor people. That's what I keep seeing here.... it's all about being muddleclass and having "assets". I, and many others, have NO WAY to "protect" ourselves. We're at the mercy. Yet, if and when all this comes down, there will be NO thought of us at all.

I keep hearing "plant a garden", and all that. Right. In the bathtub of my apartment? Would it be possible in your musings to consider those of us who don't have "assets", including a house?

Recently there was a thread on how to prepare for an emergency. It was laughable... there wasn't ONE THING I could do, except put a few gallon milk jugs of water aside. When I mentioned that, there was NOT ONE REPLY.

Why? Because those of us without "assets" are invisible and forgotten.

And that includes "liberals" who forget about us, too.

[RestoreGore]

84. Could the American peopel even handle the truth?

Al Gore's book is prescient and true, and it still didn't even begin to scratch the surface of how truly deep the corruption goes.

[Capn Sunshine]

85. Bread and circuses

That's the stage the people of America are in.

Coming soon, live executions on Fox news.

[RestoreGore]

88. And it would get good ratings no doubt

And no doubt the commercials would be about beer and 4x4s.

[Mark Twain Girl]

89. Excellent, excellent post. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

92. Thanks for the thread welshTerrier

Kicked, too late to recommend.