Mr McFarlane is on the board of Myriant Technologies, Inc. (Myriant), a privately-held, biotech developer and manufacturer of renewable bio-based chemicals. He was also the main architect of the ‘Star Wars’ defence initiative which proved to be unworkable, incredibly expensive, and rather mad. He doesn’t appear to have a very good record at predicting workable and reasonable future technology. Furthermore he has a vested interest in promoting biotech fuel. Both these facts should be borne in mind when listening to this podcast.
Ethanol is currently providing us with ~8% of our gasoline, but uses 40% of our corn crop. This says nothing of the amount of water used on the crops themselves, & then in the processing of the ethanol in a time where falling water tables/water shortages are becoming more of an issue.Even if you use methanol or biomass or biodiesel, won’t this really chew up massive quantities of food supplies & water that could be better used elsewhere?
Or there an implied, unspoken message from Mr. McFarlane that “it’s too late in the game re: Peak Oil to worry about what inflating food costs will do to all the other countries. We need to take care of Americans.”
It’s not lost on me that a Machiavellian solution to Peak Oil, if you are sitting in the American seat at the global table, is to simply burn up all your excess food supplies as fuel. This will not only reduce dependence on foreign oil, but as we have seen in the last month, prove to be a very effective means of cutting emerging market demand & governments from power through starvation. Interestingly, that is what may currently be going on.
As a human being, I don’t like the thought of that, but it is “a solution” in the strictest sense of the phrase. Any thoughts?
Yossi,
Your post was worthy and your point is valid. Thanks for sharing. pass the prune pudding please…dinner is not over with our guest yet.
Early in the interview, Chris and Robert discuss McFarlane’s involvement as an “honest broker” between the Sudan government and the Darfur rebel leaders. Chris says this is “incredible work”. However, the Washington Post has documented that this arrangement was initiated by the Sudanese government, which then arranged for Qatar to pay McFarlane’s consulting fee, simply to create the illusion that McFarlane is a disinterested third party. The story also mentioned that McFarlane lobbied various US officials on behalf of Qatar and Sudan, without registering himself with the State Department as an agent of a foreign government. Qatar is one of the more liberal Islamic states, but it is run as an autocracy under Sharia law, and it is also a key OPEC member – exactly the sort of government McFarlane is constantly warning us about in the interview.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/29/AR2009092903840.html?sid=ST2009093000189
McFarlane said he became interested in Sudan during an interfaith trip to the region with members of Congress in 2007, and he has done consulting work in southern Sudan since then. In November 2008, McFarlane recounted in an e-mail, he was approached by a former business partner, Albino Aboug, on behalf of Sudan's government. "Albino asked whether I was willing to discuss with senior representatives from the Khartoum government how to foster negotiations between Khartoum and the Darfur rebel groups and also how to move toward renewed diplomatic negotiations between our countries," McFarlane wrote. "I agreed to do so." In early January, Aboug and McFarlane met in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, with Babiker, who is currently stationed as a Sudanese diplomat in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; it is unclear whether a Qatari representative was present, and McFarlane declined to provide details. The Qatari Embassy in Washington did not respond to telephone messages. What followed was a month-long exchange of e-mails and documents between McFarlane and Babiker, culminating with McFarlane's contract with Qatar. [....] During this time, Babiker was in regular communication with senior Sudanese intelligence officials about McFarlane, the documents show. The documents suggest that the parties were keen to avoid public links between McFarlane and Sudan, with McFarlane stressing the need for a third party such as Qatar. Yet an Arabic-language memo from Babiker to an unidentified Sudanese superior on Jan. 25 refers to the need to "provide the necessary money for the activities of the group," according to a translation. A week later, McFarlane sent an electronic copy of the proposed contract with Qatar to Babiker "for your consideration" before it was signed, the documents show. McFarlane also drafted a letter from Qatar inviting himself to the contract signing, then sent the language to Babiker to pass on to Qatar for approval. The final contract was signed in Doha, Qatar's capital, on Feb. 9 with Sudanese officials present, according to the records. McFarlane, whose salary under the contract is $410,400, according to a fee schedule sent to Babiker, said he has "no basis for assuming" that Sudan is funding any part of the contract.
RE: Strategic Oil Reserves
Anyone have any information on what pace of consumption this is based upon?
My thinking is that if planning is “projecting” a 6 month supply based on rates of consumption of say, 1995, leadership might end up with a nasty disaster on their hands.
RE: Caliphate
I suggest people educate themselves on this topic. CFR or not, it’s no joke. The crisis in Europe, specifically France, Britain, Netherlands and Denmark is showing what happens when people refuse to take part in established legal systems that hold them accountable. If they are allowed to establish their own (Sha’ria), they can’t be held criminally liable for any crimes committed against non-Muslims (Kafirs).
Not my idea of a bright future based on the priniciples of Classic Liberalism I hold dear… The exact opposite, in fact. Think “Inquisition”.
RE: Open Fuel Standard
I think several posts became wrapped around the axle on the issue of Methonol/Ethanol.
If the open fuel standard allowed cars to burn those - in addition to Biodiesel - as was stated, this would actually address many of the serious concerns I have personally, regarding shortages and the maintanance of mobility.
I see biodiesel as a great interim approach to fuel shortages. Not only can you still it yourself with the proper equipment, it’s significantly cleaner burning and would help take the burden off an already stressed fossil fuel market.
This podcast was timely for me, I’ve been researching which would be the “best” diesel vehicle to purchase over the last few days, and think it’s time to start a thread on the matter.
Cheers, and thanks very much for an excellent interview with a very insightful guest.
Aaron
Luckily, as intelligent adults, we can each decide to take what we will from any given source. My approach is to listen to everyone, even (especially?) if I disagree with them because that’s how I learn things that I may not have known.
My purpose in interviewing Mr. McFarlane was to get his views as a former NSA on the current geopolitical situation as it relates to risks to the flow of oil from the middle east. I learned things for which I am grateful, feeling like I got something of a glimpse into how a high level player in the power game is viewing the world. Whether I agree with their assessment or not is utterly besides the point for me, the value is in accepting that this happens to be the way they see the world.
And, as you will see in my upcoming book, I hold an especially dim view of biofuels, but since the purpose of the interview for me was the geopolitical situation I chose to let several contestable points about biofuels slide.
As always, take what you will and leave the rest.
Finally, we are going to run interviews and guests with whom we may entirely, thoroughly, and completely disagree because we want to avoid building an echo chamber. This is a time to remain limber and vigilant.
major kudos for getting RM to do the podcast. If you can get Gaddafi, that would be cool as well. (I am being facetious but not sarcastic.)
Are we missing the obvious? Congress dictates more and more safety features which add considerable weight, then it dictates inceases in MPG on the order of 35%. We definitley don’t have scientific minds in Congress. Why have vehicles become so heavy? Is it because fat Americans like fat vehicles and want 100% Collective Safety (which is actually less Personal Safety)?
As for getting off oil, it seems hybrids and nuclear fission power power would be the way forward, but we have the anti-Nuke Religion in the USA saying Nukes are too dangerous though France seems to mind just fine generating over 70% of its electricity from nuclear fission power plants.
[quote=Thomas]major kudos for getting RM to do the podcast. If you can get Gaddafi, that would be cool as well. (I am being facetious but not sarcastic.)
[/quote]
Heck, while we’re wishing for points of view different from our own, I say we do it big time and get a Bernanke interview. Seriously… I would love to see Chris interview him. How he answers and what he says (or probably more likely, what he doesn’t say) might give a better indication of the Fed’s true degree of confidence in their current course. I think what ultimately happens with the currency and economy (and by extension, to us) is very much determined by how far the Fed goes, and whether they’ll stick to their guns until the bitter end or if they eventually get cold feet and give in to pressure.
So Chris and Adam, let us know how that Bernanke interview request goes
- Nickbert
The interview with Robert McFarlane was conducted like all Chris Martenson interviews where the guest is probed for his ideas and then given sufficient time to explain himself and flesh out those ideas. Unlike most TV hosts, Chris doesn’t cut his guests off every 10 seconds and jump in with his own thoughts. I also like hearing from people with various viewpoints. In addition, Robert McFarlane is a high profile individual who has been around the seats of power for a long time. You don’t get to be the National Security Adviser or get invited to the CFR and Bilderberg Group meetings by being a nobody.
But, this is what makes listening to McFarlane so terrifying. How can he hang out with the movers and shakers of the world, yet have so little knowledge of how things actually work from an engineering standpoint. I get the same feeling when I watch members of Congress propose ideas which violate the laws of chemistry and physics. For instance in June 2009 the House of Representatives passed a bill that would require the US to reduce green house gas emissions to a level 83 percent below that of 2005 by 2050. This would put our per capita CO2 emission below those of emitted around 1875, before the introduction of electricity, the internal combustion engine, the airplane the motor car and indoor plumbing. They had no idea how such an amazing feat was to be accomplished but they passed a bill requiring it.
With what’s going on the Middle East I wouldn’t surprised I we are into gas rationing by summer. If that happens the crazy ideas will be flying. We can’t afford to waste time chasing chasing after “success is just around the technological corner” ideas like McFarlane’s. In the Middle Ages alchemists thought turning lead into gold and development of an elixir to prevent aging were “just around the corner”.
We have all kinds of energy technologies that actually work. We’ve got massive amounts of natural gas in the US which only costs around $4.00 per 1,000,000 Btu, whereas bulk gasoline costs around $2.75 per 125,000 Btu (making natural gas 5.5 times cheaper) and Clean Energy Fuels Corp (CLNE) can convert existing gasoline vehicles to natural gas right now.
The Europeans have converted much of their car fleet to modern diesel engines. Anybody who’s been to Europe and driven one of these high torque cars with a 5-speed knows how much fun they are to drive. Here is a list of 25 of them that all get at least 64 miles per gallon in combined driving. Compare that to the pathetic 22 / 33 city / highway mileage with an American standard transmission 4-cylinder gasoline Accord or Camry, and don’t forget you get less mileage with ethanol blended into your gas. We could start importing them next week and building them here quicklyn if the our goverment would cooperate. http://www.bovinebazaar.com/deisel.htm
The Germans were making coal into motor fuel during WWII. The South Africans improved the process during the 1980’s and the Chinese are building massive coal-to-oil plants right now. The US is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Too bad we can’t use existing technology it to make it into motor fuel.
The rest of the world is engaged in a nuclear power plant building boom, lead by China. Electricity from existing US nuclear power plants costs less than 2 cents a kWh, but instead of building more nuclear plants we are building windmills to produce tiny amounts of electricity for 15 cents a kWh which is of little practical value anyway because it’s intermittent and unreliable and we’re building solar arrays to produce even more tiny amounts electricity for 30 cents a kWh which are also intermittent and unreliable. The US developed nuclear power 50 years ago, but now we can’t get a new plant past the catch-22, Rubik’s cube, quagmire maize erected by our government.
The latest OECD Programme for International Student Assessment report compared 15-year-olds in 70 countries. US students ranked 14th out of 34 OECD countries in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. This may may help explain why President Obama made a trip to Arcadia Florida in 2009 for the commissioning of the “largest photovoltaic solar facility in the nation” that can produce on average about 5 megawatts of electricity, equal to about 0.0046 as much as decent sized nuclear plant. Or how Congress people can describe $61 billion a year in spending cuts as “massive: and “Draconian” when $61 billion amounts to 0.017 of the federal budget. Maybe it also explains why Americans like Robert McFarlane can talk so well, but struggle with scientific and engineering realities.
Shall we explore what it means to develop our thinking skills? I can think of a few rules of thumb; certainly others can add more:–Small minds talk about people. Average minds talk about things. Big minds talk about ideas.
–Where a man stands on any issue depends on where he sits.
–Nobody is ever completely right or completely wrong.
–It is often worthwhile to understand another person’s view, even if you completely dissagree with him.
[quote=cmartenson] Whether I agree with their assessment or not is utterly besides the point for me, the value is in accepting that this happens to be the way they see the world.
[/quote]
I’m having trouble with the idea that we really learned anything about how McFarlane sees the world. He is obviously disingenuous, describing his role in Darfur as an “honest broker” when in fact Qatar was recruited to pay for his mission on behalf of the Sudanese government. Some probing questions about this might have brought out the hypocrisy in McFarlane’s arrangement, and perhaps discovered exactly what he is doing for Sudan, but instead McFarlane’s view was taken at face value.
If McFarlane is dishonest about his role in Sudan (as he also withheld information from Congress about Iran Contra, resulting in his misdemeanor criminal conviction in 1989) then why should we believe he is telling us the truth about his views about Islamic states, OPEC, the geopolitical situation, Peak Oil, or biofuels? It’s just as likely that he is feeding us an intentionally crafted deception, and that his true beliefs and agenda are very different. Again, a few questions about the EROEI of biofuels, the amount of farmland required to replace world oil consumption, or the incestuous relations between the US, the Saudis, and other Islamic dictatorships (as exemplified by McFarlane’s $410,000/yr consulting contract with Qatar) might have been very revealing.
Based on his record, McFarlane is not a guest that would be welcome at my dinner table. A meetup with him would be more analogous to a wrestling match, a situation indeed calling for “limber and vigilant” energy, rather than complacent acceptance.
Chris, I found myself wondering if McFarlane placed any advance limitations or ground rules on the lines of questioning that he was willing to tolerate in order to do the interview?
Well, I called him a worse name than Logan’s run did, so I guess I should be banned, too.
My objection was not that I disagree with his ideas, or that I don’t like what he stands for as a human, though both of those are certainly the case. It was that Chris gave him a forum to promote his agenda without giving the necessary background for judging that agenda. You can’t assume that everyone understands that a title like “Chairman of McFarlane and Associates Inc, a consulting firm focused on advancing techonologies in the national and homeland security domains” means “lobbyist for major energy and military-industrial corporations.” McFarlane and his ilk sell their influence to the highest bidder, regardless of the actual merits of the ideas being promoted by the bidder.
One might have been excused for thinking that Chris endorsed the ideas, given the banner headline for the interview. McFarlane is a master of (mis)communication. He knows that most readers won’t read an entire article, a lot will just read the first few paragraphs, and a fair number won’t get past the headline. That one has got to have made him proud. He probably forwarded it to his clients.
Hey, I love this site, and am thankful for all I have learned here. I also regret the intemperate language used: there is never an excuse for that. But I honestly think Chris blew this one.
And I want to thank Logan’s Run for doing us all the service of being the first to break the ice by criticizing what was, before that, uncritical acceptance.
Great informative post Chris - but to listen I have to download this to my pc then transfer to my Nokia - possible but fiddly. If you simply enclosed the attachments properly in the xml feed then standard podcast programs (like I have on my Nokia) but also available on all other platforms could download automatically when you post new interviews!
I have only found this one http://feeds.feedburner.com/ChrisMartensonBlogs?format=xml and it does not enclose the podcast properly. If there is an alternative I am sorry for the comment but please let me know where it is!
This interview with Robert McFarlane is the first content on CM.com I have been disappointed in, indeed deeply so. McFarlane’s policy presciptions are seriously flawed, his understanding of our energy plight is superficial at best and his geopolitical “analysis” amounted to little more than wog-bashing.
I am all for being exposed to different viewpoints on this site and elsewhere. However, the views of the likes of McFarlane and others of our ruling elites who have failed us so spectacularly are unfortunately inescapable because the MSM provides a platform to them and them alone. There is no need for CM.com to do so too.
CM’s time and our time would be better spent interviewing figures who have more to offer both in terms of intellect and integrity.
A very poor showing
Interesting interview and some fiery comments.
Here is my assessment.
Synopsis: Statements that we are beyond Peak Oil entirely hinge upon the claim that Oil = Fossil Fuel.
For e.g.There are three major forms of fossil fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. All three were formed many hundreds of millions of years ago before the time of the dinosaurs – hence the name fossil fuels. The age they were formed is called the Carboniferous Period. It was part of the Paleozoic Era. “Carboniferous” gets its name from carbon, the basic element in coal and other fossil fuels.
The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago. At the time, the land was covered with swamps filled with huge trees, ferns and other large leafy plants, similar to the picture above. The water and seas were filled with algae – the green stuff that forms on a stagnant pool of water. Algae is actually millions of very small plants.
As the trees and plants died, they sank to the bottom of the swamps of oceans. They formed layers of a spongy material called peat. Over many hundreds of years, the peat was covered by sand and clay and other minerals, which turned into a type of rock called sedimentary.Source: http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter08.htmlMore and more rock piled on top of more rock, and it weighed more and more. It began to press down on the peat. The peat was squeezed and squeezed until the water came out of it and it eventually, over millions of years, it turned into coal, oil or petroleum, and natural gas.
The problem with this is that;
1. Are we to believe that old growth forests – dinosaurs included – were buried under over 7 miles of rocks etc, and then “turned” into oil - as this 2007 news release explains?
Source: http://www.huliq.com/19627/exxon-drills-world-s-deepest-well-at-its-russian-sakhalin-1-projectExxonMobil announced on Wednesday, April 25, that its subsidiary Exxon Neftegaz Limited has completed drilling of the Z-11 well, the longest measured extended-reach drilling well in the world. It is located on Sakhalin Island at Russia's Far East and is part of Exxon-led Sakhalin-1 oil and gas project. The record-setting well has a total measured depth of 37,016 feet (11,282 meters) or over seven miles, Exxon said in its official press release.
2. Professor Kutcherov and researchers from the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have reported in the Science Daily that they have proof that oil does not require squashed dinosaurs & their fodder, or indeed any other vegetable material.
Abiotic OilThe abiotic oil formation theory suggests that crude oil is the result of naturally occurring and possibly ongoing geological processes. This theory was developed in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, as the Union needed to be self sufficient in terms of producing its own energy. The science behind the theory is sound and is based on experimental evidence in both the laboratory and in the field. This theory has helped to identify and therefore develop large numbers of gas and oil deposits. Examples of such fields are the South Khylchuyu field and the controversial Sakhalin II field.
In its simplest form, the theory is that carbon present in the magma beneath the crust reacts with hydrogen to form methane as well as a raft of other mainly alkane hydrocarbons. The reactions are more complicated than this, with several intermediate stages. Particular mineral rocks such as granite and other silicon based rocks act as catalysts, which speed up the reaction without actually becoming involved or consumed in the process.
Experiments have shown that under extreme conditions of heat and pressure it is possible to convert iron oxide, calcium carbonate and water into methane, with hydrocarbons containing up to 10 carbon atoms being produced by Russian scientists last century and confirmed in recent US experiments. The absence of large quantities of free gaseous oxygen in the magma prevents the hydrocarbons from burning and therefore forming the lower energy state molecule carbon dioxide. The conditions present in the Earth’s mantle would easily be sufficient for these small hydrocarbon chains to polymerise into the longer chain molecules found in crude oil.
Source: Scientists Prove Abiotic Oil Is Real!
3. Is this recent off-planet discovery, by the Cassini spacecraft as it orbits Saturn’s moon Titan proof positive of Abiotic Oils.
Titan's Surface Organics Surpass Oil Reserves on Earth02.13.08
An artist's imagination of hydrocarbon pools, icy and rocky terrain on the surface of Saturn's largest moon Titan. Image credit: Steven Hobbs (Brisbane, Queensland, Australia).
Saturn's orange moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to new data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft. The hydrocarbons rain from the sky, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes. The new findings from the study led by Ralph Lorenz, Cassini radar team member from the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Md., are reported in the Jan. 29 issue of the Geophysical Research Letters. "Titan is just covered in carbon-bearing material -- it's a giant factory of organic chemicals," said Lorenz. "This vast carbon inventory is an important window into the geology and climate history of Titan." At a balmy minus 179 degrees Celsius (minus 290 degrees Fahrenheit), Titan is a far cry from Earth. Instead of water, liquid hydrocarbons in the form of methane and ethane are present on the moon's surface, and tholins probably make up its dunes. The term "tholins"was coined by Carl Sagan in 1979 to describe the complex organic molecules at the heart of prebiotic chemistry. Cassini has mapped about 20 percent of Titan's surface with radar. Several hundred lakes and seas have been observed, with each of several dozen estimated to contain more hydrocarbon liquid than Earth's oil and gas reserves. The dark dunes that run along the equator contain a volume of organics several hundred times larger than Earth's coal reserves. Proven reserves of natural gas on Earth total 130 billion tons, enough to provide 300 times the amount of energy the entire United States uses annually for residential heating, cooling and lighting. Dozens of Titan's lakes individually have the equivalent of at least this much energy in the form of methane and ethane.Source: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080213.html
Before jumping to the emphatic, irrevocable & ‘ask-no-questions’ conclusion that Oil = Fossil Fuel, perhaps we should focus on whether this is a fact or just a theory — especially when we have so much economic, political and military needs/reliance on securing uninterrupted supplies at a fair price.
cheers
[quote=The Albatross]
The problem with this is that;
1. Are we to believe that old growth forests – dinosaurs included – were buried under over 7 miles of rocks etc, and then “turned” into oil - as this 2007 news release explains?
ExxonMobil announced on Wednesday, April 25, that its subsidiary Exxon Neftegaz Limited has completed drilling of the Z-11 well, the longest measured extended-reach drilling well in the world. It is located on Sakhalin Island at Russia's Far East and is part of Exxon-led Sakhalin-1 oil and gas project. The record-setting well has a total measured depth of 37,016 feet (11,282 meters) or over seven miles, Exxon said in its official press release.Source: http://www.huliq.com/19627/exxon-drills-world-s-deepest-well-at-its-russian-sakhalin-1-project Before jumping to the emphatic, irrevocable & 'ask-no-questions' conclusion that Oil = Fossil Fuel, perhaps we should focus on whether this is a fact or just a theory --- especially when we have so much economic, political and military needs/reliance on securing uninterrupted supplies at a fair price. cheers [/quote] Here we go again with the abiotic oil ...Hopefully we start finding a bunch more of it soon. There are Mountains and Canyons on the earth that are miles in height and depth. It is certainly possible for surface features to be lifted or sunk by 7 miles. Those formations are created via plate tectonics, similarly to the folding of the continental plates that buries the organic matter which created Fossil Fuels. John
[quote=The Albatross]Interesting interview and some fiery comments.
Here is my assessment.
Synopsis: Statements that we are beyond Peak Oil entirely hinge upon the claim that Oil = Fossil Fuel.
<snipped>
Proven reserves of natural gas on Earth total 130 billion tons, enough to provide 300 times the amount of energy the entire United States uses annually for residential heating, cooling and lighting. Dozens of Titan's lakes individually have the equivalent of at least this much energy in the form of methane and ethane.Source: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080213.html Before jumping to the emphatic, irrevocable & 'ask-no-questions' conclusion that Oil = Fossil Fuel, perhaps we should focus on whether this is a fact or just a theory --- especially when we have so much economic, political and military needs/reliance on securing uninterrupted supplies at a fair price. cheers [/quote] Albatross - Perhaps we should reexamine why we have so much focus on the economic, political and military need to secure uninterrupted supplies - at any price? The US already consumes almost 25% of the world's current daily oil production. We use 17-20 million bpd out of 85 million bpd produced. Do the math, 25% of the world's oil production going to 3% of the population? And we have the stones to bitch about $4 a gallon gas? I deliberately cut out the section above because it is a pretty clear indication of the myopic view our beloved real life rocket scientists at NASA have. The "Proven reserves of natural gas on Earth" are denominated in US energy consumption. Why? What point is the author trying to make? Besides 'Last Man Standing'?
What happened to the post that followed mine last night? It was a little rough on Chris, IIRC, but it made some of the best points I’ve read in a long time.
Chris read it. Afterward, I invited the user to re-post his comment in more constructive and emotionally neutral language. He has declined the invitation. However, I can requote the post in neutral terms myself:
[quote=12trees]
Chris,
I thought about this for several hours before deciding to jump in. You are [ . . . ]. I am ashamed for [unhelpful and highly emotionally charged langage ] [. . .] . . . sickening.
First, we have a shortage of conservation, not of energy. Our energy system is designed to waste most of the input, in order to maintain cash flow for corporations and sheiks. General Motors had Burt Rutan design a 100 mpg car in the early 80’s, and all three automakers produced working diesel/electric hybrids delivering 70 mpg+ with Federal subsidies under Clinton. The Prius was an inferior knockoff of that taxpayer-purchased success. GM could import 50 mpg Opels from Europe, or produce them here – it should simply be required by law. We could cut our energy use in half, getting down to the per capita level of Japan, with little effort and no new technology. It just takes talking about the real issues and honesty in government, the one and only thing that we are short of.
All McFarlane’s group is asking for is continued waste from a more diverse system of supply. This makes money for the financial system in particular as they play a million different streams of futures speculation and derivatives. Status quo, only more so. For you to give that clear deception the credibility of your good name is – really unspeakable.
Logan’s Run would be an honored guest at my dinner table any evening. He, a loyal contributor to this site who has participated in so many discussions, is worth a thousand [ . . . ] like McFarlane. I watched Daily Kos kick everyone off who wanted to have Cheney impeached, and now it is a steady stream of mindless safe babble, supporting an Obama right or wrong party line and therefore worse than useless.
Washington’s Blog is honest, courageous, and controversial. I expect nothing less of you Chris. This is the real world and it is ugly. [/quote]