![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 57. Go back in thread:
Posted by Beckett on January 26, 2012, at 17:34:25
In reply to Joe Bageant, posted by sigismund on January 25, 2012, at 20:01:58
"What was it that gave Arrow employees the arrogance to ride roughshod?'" the article asks.
Are the employees from out of the community? I note they did not touch the farmers nor their hats (Abrukas?). They used their big rigs.
I had started Rainbow Pie today on kindle. Only twenty years? I hope many more than that.
I heard Obama's State of the Union. I was was sufficiently impressed to think I am registering Green Party. The two parties here can play just fine without me. Besides, what is left without the land? These farmers know. Bageant writes about it.
Posted by sigismund on January 27, 2012, at 16:11:04
In reply to Re: Joe Bageant » sigismund, posted by Beckett on January 26, 2012, at 17:34:25
Joe Bageant's general position is that there is precious little left to loot.
I don't understand that thing about registration. But the Greens.....now who was that candidate? Not Paul Erlich. The other one. The motor car one, Detroit. Well anyway he handed the election to GWB, but then you don't have preferential voting. I can see why so many Americans pay no attention to it.
Posted by Beckett on January 27, 2012, at 20:17:12
In reply to Re: Joe Bageant » Beckett, posted by sigismund on January 27, 2012, at 16:11:04
You speak of Ralph Nader. Sigh. About registration, I can register as Green and on election day vote as I please. I needn't hand my vote away to say, Newt Gingrich. Registration here would only allow me access to vote in my particular party's primary. So if I had an interest in the outcome of the Republican primary, I could register as Republican (I think at least 90 days before the primary but not sure) in order to vote.
So this is a good time for me to register as Green. I can still vote democrat if I choose as I have always done. The Green Party finally did not approve from what I understand of Mr. Nader's campaign strategies in 2000. I am still reading through the Green party platform which, honestly, is more than I have done for the democratic platform. I believe their approach to the electoral process is at the grassroots level rather than the presidency and focus on holding more local and lower level offices.
But some say Al Gore had other troubles as well. As much as I dearly like him. What a botched and vexed event, calamitous from my perspective. I feel he would have been too good a president. If that makes sense.
Posted by Beckett on January 27, 2012, at 22:25:03
In reply to Re: Joe Bageant » Beckett, posted by sigismund on January 27, 2012, at 16:11:04
> Joe Bageant's general position is that there is precious little left to loot.
>
> I don't understand that thing about registration. But the Greens.....now who was that candidate? Not Paul Erlich. The other one. The motor car one, Detroit. Well anyway he handed the election to GWB, but then you don't have preferential voting. I can see why so many Americans pay no attention to it.
Sigi, I realize I do not understand your country's electoral process at all....
Posted by sigismund on January 27, 2012, at 22:34:55
In reply to Re: Joe Bageant » sigismund, posted by Beckett on January 27, 2012, at 20:17:12
I am some way into "Deer Hunting with Jesus" though it has been slow because I took a smidgen of trimipramine last night. It made me sleep and gave me continuous dreams. Nowadays I can follow American politics on the internet (Truthout, Nation of Change). I guess back then it was New York Review of Books. Back then before the sense of emergency. That must have been when I subscribed to Harpers? Lewis Lapham's tone regarding the Bush Administration was a continuous surprise and delight. It still takes my breath away
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20051121/msgs/584041.html
and I shall try to match it all up with Joe Bageant.
Posted by sigismund on January 28, 2012, at 0:32:57
In reply to Re: Joe Bageant » sigismund, posted by Beckett on January 27, 2012, at 22:25:03
We have three levels. Local, State and Federal.
Federal is governed by the constitution which is something of a hybrid between the British system and the US constitution. There is the Governor General as the representative of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II who is our Head of State, but whom we see only rarely. There is the Senate and the House of Representatives. I wonder how close Australia is to Canada?
Posted by Beckett on February 3, 2012, at 4:11:16
In reply to Joe Bageant, posted by sigismund on January 25, 2012, at 20:01:58
Here is what I see as a contradictory message from the last State of the Union Address concerning domestic fracking. That we can achieve clean fracking. This and other contradictory statements left me very confused:
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And Im requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use, because America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk. The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we dont have to choose between our environment and our economy. And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock, reminding us that government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/2/obamas_support_for_natural_gas_drilling
The democracy now transcript mentions that Australia has had flammable water as well. From fracking?
Posted by Beckett on February 3, 2012, at 4:36:11
In reply to Joe Bageant, posted by sigismund on January 25, 2012, at 20:01:58
http://epc.buffalo.edu/authors/niedecker/poems.html
FORECLOSURETell em to take my bare walls down
my cement abutments
their parties thereof
and clause of clawsLeave me the land
Scratch out: the landMay prose and property both die out
and leave me peace
Posted by sigismund on February 3, 2012, at 19:44:32
In reply to Fracking, posted by Beckett on February 3, 2012, at 4:11:16
>Well, virtually every Republican candidate right now is out for elimination of the EPA, which shows the deep, deep influence of oil and gas on Congress and on the Republican Party.
Australia is a dry continent. There are many regions that will not be able to function if the groundwater goes. Successive governments have readily granted exploration licences. State Labor governments mainly. Prime farming land and heritage areas should be treated with greater care.
The choicest bit, in the US rather than here, is the way pro-drilling is somehow linked to Christianity and moral values. This kind of overreach normally leads to disaster. Wanton and shameless. Certainly not conservative. I can listen to real conservatives. I heard Roger Scruton yesterday. He was fine.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Green-Philosophy-Think-Seriously-Planet/dp/1848870760
Posted by Beckett on February 3, 2012, at 21:41:11
In reply to Re: Fracking, posted by sigismund on February 3, 2012, at 19:44:32
That looks good. I think it's being released in the US under this title: http://www.amazon.com/Think-Seriously-About-Planet-Environmental/dp/0199895570/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_3
I am beginning to understand what you have previously mentioned regarding conservatism vs the conservatism linked to the religious right here. To me they have always been intertwined. I am finding the Bageant book helpful toward this end.
I haven't heard of Scruton. I wish I could read more efficiently. I do much better with audiobooks.
Posted by sigismund on February 4, 2012, at 1:19:18
In reply to Re: Fracking » sigismund, posted by Beckett on February 3, 2012, at 21:41:11
Well, Scruton is English, although now with the American Enterprise Institute (I think). But I like him. (I wonder if he is a little like William F Buckley? Though less culture warish.) It is a conservatism that goes back to Edmund Burke. Joe Bageant is just brilliant.
Who says we are 20 years behind? Listen to this
ttps://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/mining/monckton/monckton-speaks-to-mining-industry-share-this-video?t=dXNlcmlkPTE0MTY4NixlbWFpbGlkPTU1Nw%3D%3D
Posted by sigismund on February 4, 2012, at 1:20:16
In reply to Re: Fracking » Beckett, posted by sigismund on February 4, 2012, at 1:19:18
Posted by Beckett on February 16, 2012, at 8:16:16
In reply to Re: Fracking, posted by sigismund on February 3, 2012, at 19:44:32
Well, I was reading this, and if correct, goes a long ways towards explaining this pressure to frack In the US and why Obama's speech sounded so awkward on this subject.
Posted by sigismund on February 16, 2012, at 22:24:39
In reply to Re: Fracking » sigismund, posted by Beckett on February 16, 2012, at 8:16:16
You did mean to link the Chomsky article?
I had read it, but it was not to do with fracking, was it?
We were in Hanoi for the thousandth anniversary of the founding of the city. I forget the legend now....something to do with a turtle.
We walked around the lake in the centre called Hoan Kiem which was decorated all round with big balloons and light shows and many people out, and naturally I thought of what it must have felt like when Nixon bombed it that Christmas. (Was it to facilitate the negotiations in Paris?) And the 2M dead.
Posted by Beckett on February 16, 2012, at 22:48:59
In reply to Re: Fracking » Beckett, posted by sigismund on February 16, 2012, at 22:24:39
Yes, to Chomsky:
Not all prominent voices foresee American decline. Among international media, there is none more serious and responsible than the London Financial Times. It recently devoted a full page to the optimistic expectation that new technology for extracting North American's fossil fuels might allow the U.S. to be come energy independent, hence to retain its global hegemony for a century. There is no mention of the kind of world the U.S. would rule in this happy event, but not for lack of evidence.
At about the same time, the International Energy Agency reported that, with rapidly increasing carbon emissions from fossil fuel use, the limit of safety will be reached by 2017 if the world continues on its present course. The door is closing, the IEA chief economist said, and very soon it will be closed for ever.I would like to visit Vietnam very much.
Posted by sigismund on February 17, 2012, at 1:41:56
In reply to Re: Fracking » sigismund, posted by Beckett on February 16, 2012, at 8:16:16
I was not so impressed by the LFT when I was in Europe. My favourite conservative (if that means much) economic commentator is Ambrose Evans-Pritchard from the Telegraph.
I did read that now that you mention it. For some reason I was not particularly impressed. Of course energy for the US *not* from the Middle East is important. But I am overwhelmed by dumbness and self defeating policies. OTOH, I hear that California is doing solar...large scale, not photovoltaic. I have heard this man is doing that there (no support here), although it is not mentioned on wiki.
Posted by sigismund on February 17, 2012, at 1:44:39
In reply to Re: Fracking » sigismund, posted by Beckett on February 16, 2012, at 22:48:59
They have a pilot plant in Bakersfield.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=energy-mills-ausra
Posted by Beckett on February 19, 2012, at 9:19:21
In reply to Re: Fracking » Beckett, posted by sigismund on February 17, 2012, at 1:41:56
Seems his company was bought up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ausra_(company)
I am woefully ignorant of solar power in this country, even though I live in California.
What was that solar company scandal Obama was involved in early in his tenure? I felt he was headed in the right direction, then....
Posted by Beckett on February 25, 2012, at 10:36:26
In reply to Re: Fracking » Beckett, posted by sigismund on February 16, 2012, at 22:24:39
>We walked around the lake in the centre called Hoan Kiem which was decorated all round with big balloons and light shows and many people out, and naturally I thought of what it must have felt like when Nixon bombed it that Christmas. (Was it to facilitate the negotiations in Paris?) And the 2M dead.
How do you explain the ways in which the Vietnamese have been able to continue and regenerate, even to forgive the US (?) for these harms? I have always wondered. There seems an absence of bitterness. Can this be true?
Posted by sigismund on February 25, 2012, at 13:51:21
In reply to Continuing to live » sigismund, posted by Beckett on February 25, 2012, at 10:36:26
Well of course I have wondered about this too and spoken to many Vietnamese about it. They are a chatty lot. I could easily find someone to talk to for an hour.
They will routinely say stuff like this.....
We were proud to fight the French and the Americans and beat them, but we are not proud to suffer from this corruption.
Of course they remember the support given to them from the Chinese, the Russians and the antiwar movement. This means they don't mind us too much and are not particularly mindful of the crimes of communism. Their brand of communism was less bad than some others, AFAIK.
After they had put an end to the Khmer Rouge, we still supported the KR at the UN.
Posted by sigismund on February 25, 2012, at 15:32:18
In reply to Re: Continuing to live, posted by sigismund on February 25, 2012, at 13:51:21
There is a famous quote of Ho's, about what I am not quite sure, but it goes....
Better to eat French sh*t for 10 years than Chinese sh*t for a thousand.
And Giap said, when asked how long he was prepared to fight the Americans, something like...as long it would take, if necessary a thousand years.
Years later an American general who had served in Vietnam offered him his watch. Giap refused to take it.
There are issues of pride involved. I do not understand why it is so difficult to understand this, if in fact that is the problem.
Howard Zinn said in a lecture something like......the thing about having our troops stationed in other countries is that sometimes it BOTHERS them.
Is it racism? Lack of empathy for sure. Not to speak of ignorance.
The odd thing is that even the people who prosecuted the war did not believe in it, at least not anywhere near the end.
But they were trapped because they could not turn back.
Posted by Beckett on March 9, 2012, at 9:12:09
In reply to Re: Continuing to live, posted by sigismund on February 25, 2012, at 15:32:18
Giap is against this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauxite_mining_in_Vietnam
I started reading about the history of Vietnam. It is long and unexpected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiyue
>Howard Zinn said in a lecture something like......the thing about having our troops stationed in other countries is that sometimes it BOTHERS them.It can be that simple:)
Posted by Beckett on March 9, 2012, at 15:46:30
In reply to Fracking, posted by Beckett on February 3, 2012, at 4:11:16
South America is mentioned as a area of oil and gas speculation, too. I really was not aware of the push for this power shift.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/25/140784004/new-boom-reshapes-oil-world-rocks-north-dakota
From NPR of all sources. Fracking never sounded so appealing. So upbeat and down-home. I mean, look at the title. It rocks.
Posted by sigismund on March 9, 2012, at 17:47:58
In reply to Re: Fracking, posted by Beckett on March 9, 2012, at 15:46:30
It is very important to turn that stuff into cash before those renewables take off.
Did you read Hanson say that if the tar sands pipeline from Canada and the associated development goes ahead it is game over for climate change?
Must be some kind of communist.Here there has developed a pattern.
Protesting farmers in meetings take off their hats and put them on the floor before the politicians.
The message is the same....drive over that, you bastards.I heard someone on a program saying that Fox had unleashed the Id of the Republicans.
Not so easy to get it back in the box.
I enjoy Newt from a distance.
He fleshes out my understanding of hypocrisy.
Posted by sigismund on March 9, 2012, at 18:10:37
In reply to Re: Fracking, posted by Beckett on March 9, 2012, at 15:46:30
"The point is you can't force a technology that's not commercial. Rather than subsidize things that are not going to be competitive, we need to actually use that money to do R&D to create technologies the same way that the industries created these technologies to produce natural gas and it turned out so commercially successful."
Yeah, that's what I had in mind.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.