[Ayoob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Onyered', 'S')encha, Please keep it coming, I love to hear "Neo-Libs" (You know, the ones who got their buts kicked in the last elections ) Cry like babies. I would be happy to send you a crying towel, there're about the size of a hanging chad.

[Onyered]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayoob', '
')You sound like one of those Might is Right guys.

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sencha', 'F')or those of you who are out of touch with reality, like myself (because being in touch with it, would drive you to complete insanity, instead of partial insanity) this is how you can look at things now Bush is in office.

United States of America = Galactic Empire

George Bush = Emperor Palpatine

Dick Cheney = Darth Vader

U.S. Infantry = Stormtroopers

U.S. Marines = Dark Troopers

U.S. Air Force = Galactic Navy

M1-Abrams Tanks = AT-STs

F-22 Interceptors = TIE Interceptors

Stealth bombers = TIE bombers

Regular fighters = TIE fighters

B-22 = Star Destroyer

Twin Towers = The first Death Star

Middle East = Tatooine

Al-Qaeda = Tusken Raiders

Iraq Insurgency = Rebel Alliance

So, its a slight variation from the original Star Wars, assuming Empire Strikes Back would start out with the battle of Tatooine as opposed to Hoth and that the enemies would be a mix of raiders and rebels.

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Onyered', '
')You sound like one of those the U.S. is the "Evil Empire" guys.

[BILL_THA_PHARMACIZT]

I thought it was a fluffy bunny rabbit land.

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Onyered', '
')You sound like one of those the U.S. is the "Evil Empire" guys.

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Onyered', '
')You sound like one of those the U.S. is the "Evil Empire" guys.

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Onyered', '
')You sound like one of those the U.S. is the "Evil Empire" guys.

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Onyered', '
')You sound like one of those the U.S. is the "Evil Empire" guys.

[Guest]

The Democrats in the US are more right-wing that the Conservative Party in the UK on most issues, but then the US by its very nature is a conservative nation.

[maverickdoc]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BabyPeanut', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverickdoc', 'Ã')¢â‚¬Â¦ Europe is more open to peak oil than the US (especially the red states)….

[PenultimateManStanding]

Right, Jack. Well I used to like listening to Rush and I'm a Republican and I have no problem accepting peak oil. But then again, I'm not the ideological type when it comes to politics, and don't care for politicians of either stripe. Politics: from the Greek word polis meaning city and tics meaning blood-sucking parasites.

[marko]

I am a faithful Democratic voter, though most Democrats are much too conservative for me.

While I accept peak oil, I am not so sure about most of my fellow Democrats. I think that they are just as likely to be in denial as Republicans.

Furthermore, I have been surprised at the number of Republicans on this site. It seems that they are capable of reason, too, even if the current president's rationality sometimes seems questionable.

[mjpete]

I think democrats are probably more receptive to acknowledging the possibility of peak oil. Less gasoline = better environment. Some of the farthest to the left my actually be looking forward to it, but they probably don't understand how tough things could get. Things could get worse for the environment before they get better. No one's going to worry about spotted owls when their freezing in the winter. Timber!!!

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mjpete', ' ') Things could get worse for the environment before they get better. No one's going to worry about spotted owls when their freezing in the winter. Timber!!!

[Jack]

As a Republican of long-standing...yes, in general, today's Republican is less receptive to Peak Oil. So, that begs the question, why?

In general, and recognizing a certain amount of cognitive dissonance in what I'm about to say, Republicans have preferred less government control and more use of the free market. The belief the free market will automatically solve shortages and problems is deeply ingrained - perhaps because it has, historically, worked well.

Notice that, from a Republican perspective, Democrats and Progressives favor various control and distribution mechanisms, rationing, and price controls - all of which are anathema to Republican beliefs.

Now the problem with Peak Oil is that it is different. Normal market action may not (probably will not) solve the shortage. No matter how much effort is put forth, no matter how clever we are at substituting one resource (coal, nuclear, methyl hydrates) for another, it may not suffice. But this conflicts with a lifelong belief the market will solve everything; that belief is difficult to abandon.

And it gets worse. There is the endless refrain about taking some portion of the resources consumed by the rich (however defined) and rich countries (the U.S.) to help the poor and disadvantaged around the world. We've learned that what this means is that we have money and resources taken away from us - and, mostly, we don't like it. The argument that such sacrifices will make the world a better place doesn’t convince because we've heard it before, and it hasn't.

And, even worse...Republicans tend to be (and to see themselves as) patriotic and pro-U.S. A discussion of resources inevitably leads to the observation the U.S. consumes a lot, and this develops, almost without exception, into bashing of the U.S. If one has a positive view of one's country, this gets tedious. It can cause the entire message to be ignored.

By now, you see the problem. The proponents of limits to growth favor the things Republicans oppose, and criticize those positions Republicans admire and value. Keep in mind that a large house in the 'burbs with a pair of SUV's can represent waste - or, from a different perspective, the just reward for a lifetime of hard work and striving.

Now, we get into the controversial stuff. The fundamentalist Christian community has aligned itself with the Republican Party. This has had some interesting effects. On one hand, the Republican Party has, in essence, formed a majority coalition. On the other hand, some (not all - but some) of the fundamentalists have beliefs that are not founded on science. Yet, they form an influential voting block. Thus, we have the stem-cell debate over what should, in my opinion, be a nonissue. The fundamentalists do not accept Peak Oil, and will not. After all, it isn't in the scriptures. (If only I was being sarcastic!). But what can Republican leadership do? Ignore a critical core constituency? That way leads to political disaster.

Finally, we come to the most difficult problem of all. All parts of the political universe like to believe they are motivated by the greater good. Republicans are no different. From one viewpoint, the development and use of resources is desirable, because it causes people to become more prosperous. The Republican party has come under the control of neoconservatives, who, as the Economist points out, combine hawkishness with idealism. Note that the neoconservatives are motivated, at least partially, by idealism – a wish to reform the Middle East according to their vision of what it should be. According to such logic, the people of Iran, of Venezuela, and of various other places would benefit from an importation of American values. Most Republicans get a little unsettled at this point, because the majority doesn’t care for wars. They do support wars fought for self-defense or idealistic causes. Notice that Iraq is framed in that way.

So, how do you convince a Republican of Peak Oil? One can appeal to patriotism – that is, quit sending all our money to the unappreciative folks in the Middle East. One can appeal to greed, framing Peak Oil as a way to save money or make money. One can even point out that scientific solutions may take time, and it’s merely prudent to prepare in the meantime. Avoid bashing the U.S., or suggesting aid or global rationing schemes, since that will close down the communication channels.

My $0.02 worth, anyway.

[PenultimateManStanding]

Good summary Jack but it leaves unanswered the question of why do people accept/reject peak oil? It doesn't actually seem to be political to me. It seems to be some fundamental issue of imagination. Many people simply can't imagine something this dire. In their imaginative framework, peak oil is a chicken little thing -just goofy like the bearded crank with the sandwich sign saying 'The End Is Near!'

[maverickdoc]

Great Jack. Now that is a POST!!

That made a lot of sense to me.

Republican like democrats tend to be a “loose coalition of special interestsâ€

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'G')ood summary Jack but it leaves unanswered the question of why do people accept/reject peak oil? It doesn't actually seem to be political to me. It seems to be some fundamental issue of imagination. Many people simply can't imagine something this dire. In their imaginative framework, peak oil is a chicken little thing -just goofy like the bearded crank with the sandwich sign saying 'The End Is Near!'

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', '
')People are adapted to recognizing short term problems - longer term changes are often invisible to us.

an absolute faith in the market