TrackBacks
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Terror? No • Terreur ? Non:
» Spain's 3/11 from Winds of Change.NET
192 dead in Madrid. Spain. Approximately 1400 injured, exactly 911 days after 9/11. What happened? Who did it? What's next? [Read More]
Tracked on March 12, 2004 07:27 AM
» Nous devons nous tenir debout from Le blog de Polyscopique
Bob Tarantino points out how the usual suspects are starting up their passive-aggressive "blame the victim" game by insinuating that Spain has brought these attacks on herself by supporting the war in Iraq. As Damian Penny notes, this line of... [Read More]
Tracked on March 12, 2004 05:20 PM
» The only Frenchman I'd go to war with from Emigre With Digital Cluebat
The Dissident Frogman has a very good post on the events in Spain from the european perspective. The Frogman has been a lonely voice of reason calling from the wastelands of Franco-Idiotaria for quite a while now and this post... [Read More]
Tracked on March 14, 2004 12:47 AM
» March 11 - Terrorist Attack in Spain from Being American in T.O.
Mar. 11 - I'll keep adding links as I locate them and updating in reverse order so the latest will be on top. I'll also change the time on the post to keep it on top. UPDATE: 20:29: The Dissident... [Read More]
Tracked on March 18, 2004 12:08 AM
Comments
God Bless Spain! Like you, I've been proud to have Spain on our side and feel the blow like every Spanish, DF(you deserve the status of being your own country), and American citizen would, right in the gut. Fine then, we haven't gotten all of the scum yet, but when we (together) get our hands on them...it won't be pretty! Please pass my condolences and solidarity on to your friend Juan Pablo for me. Hoist a few tonight, and tomorrow we can look forward to the beginning of 'their' end!
Posted by:
rc |
March 12, 2004 01:36 AM
DF,
As a New Yorker who was 30 blocks away from 9/11, I appreciate your comments and feel a great sympathy towards my Spanish brethren today.
And I could not agree more with what you wrote.....
Al
NYC
Posted by:
Al |
March 12, 2004 01:57 AM
A price was paid today by the citizens of a country who respect freedom and will not be forced to kneel and cower before the lowest of cowards. The death of free people is always tragic because they loved life enough to stand and strive rather than whimper and submit.
It is important to remember this when in a couple of days or weeks the Left begins to suggest that it is the victims fault for not understanding the terrorists pain, for not trying to meet them half way, for driving them to these acts. We have seen it here in the States and you will witness it there in Europe. It is more disgusting than the attacks themselves.
Do not allow them to go unchallenged. Do not allow them to turn the deaths of honest people into a tool of those who murdered them. Hold onto your cold fury and insist that justice is done and no quarter is given.
Thank you Spain for supporting the freedom of my country, and more importantly the freedom of your own.
Posted by:
Sasquach |
March 12, 2004 03:37 AM
Agreement with all posters thus far.
I think that this also calls for recognition of some inconvenient facts:
1. Islamic terrorism comes largely from the Wahhab school of thought.
2. Wahhabism is spread by networks of madrassas and other "outreach" programs.
3. These are paid for by the government of Saudi Arabia and private donations, all financed by oil revenues.
4. These oil revenues come from us; ultimately, we are paying to spread the hate and buy the bombs which are directed at us.
If we really want to hurt the Islamists, we need to bankrupt them. This starts with buying less oil from them. It is time that we recognize that someone who uses more than they need, or uses petroleum when something else would do, is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Posted by:
Engineer-Poet |
March 12, 2004 02:16 PM
That 4 points demonstration of yours seems rather simplistic, but I imagine that was the poet speaking here, not the engineer.
As well as not being the only source of Islamist terror (although it's certainly the mother of all propaganda and activism funding), Saudi Arabia is not the only oil supplier.
Pakinstan comes to mind as far as militant Islam is concerned, and I don't believe that switching our V8 powered wonders for humble bicycles to save on our oil purchases will help us in any way. Pakistan’s oil production is… Wait, are they producing anything anyway? (yep, besides black market nukes of course)
In fact, it may very well have the opposite effect. Our current state of technology doesn't allow us to give up on "their" oil yet. The "yet" is important, because thank to the genius of Capitalism, we're heading towards alternative sources of oil that are not in the hands of our enemies and viable alternative sources of energy that will be born out of scientific research, rather than hippy sweet dreams.
It means that if we were to acknowledge those "inconvenient facts" of yours, we would have two options: scaling our economic activity down or compromise it with the extra burden of costly alternative energies (which would ultimately result in effectively scaling it down). Not exactly something we can afford in this time of war, and not something I’m willing to accept anytime.
Eventually, the inconvenient facts this calls for recognition is, in my humble opinion, the following: the Saudi regime is corrupt and bankrupt. There has to be a regime change down there. If possible, right now. If not, well, say... Yesterday then.
To precipitate this regime change from outside - and in addition to the political example of democratic society that the Coalition is helping to build in Iraq - finding alternative sources of oil and *viable* energy alternatives would help a lot indeed. (And oh, please, let's not forget that "alternative" means that it costs the same, and offers the same output. "Better alternative" meaning that it costs the same or less but offers a better output. I have no use for "lesser alternatives". I'll let that to the aforementioned hippies. Period.)
So here comes the inconvenient fact I invite you to recognize: if it gets to the point where our progress in this war and our way of life and prosperity as a whole are so seriously threatened that we may fall down to the darkness where they lurk, then we'll need Western tanks and troops seizing Saudi oil fields. Nothing less.
If it gets to that point, I have no problem with that. I’m not going back to the Middle Ages, and I’m not going to accept the return of gas rationing coupons – I don’t know where you’re from, but I have memories of my grand-parents mentioning this kind of “down sides”, during another war.
Whatever it takes, but I'm not going there.
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
March 12, 2004 03:28 PM
The Islamofacists have made it very clear that Western Civilization is their enemy. We should respect that, and treat them accordingly by anihilating every last one of them. America stands with you; your fight is our fight.
"For all that you hold dear on this good Earth,
I bid you stand, Men of the West!"
Aragorn
Posted by:
Michael Lacy |
March 12, 2004 03:31 PM
Plenty of reasons why certain countries decided to stay out of the coalition against terror, but this is a big part of the big reason: fear. They didn't want their people targeted.
Little do they know that they are targets anyway, and the favorite targets of terrorists: people who don't fight back. The Mighty DF has already indexed a wealth of reports of Islamic crime in France and elsewhere. The leaders of the timid shrug, and cluck their tongues at Spain and say, "this is what happens, I told you so," and laugh nervously when the bully turns and hits them instead. "Why can't you follow our example and be polite little stationary targets?"
Nuts to that. Spain is right to fight; better that their soldiers risk death to save their people, than to sit idly like a lobster in a pot while it slowly rolls to a boil. Maybe it doesn't mean that much, but the US will not forget who has stood with them in this fight, and they will stand by Spain in the same way. God Bless and comfort the bereaved and the dead. Now let's stomp some terrorists.
Posted by:
Nightfly |
March 12, 2004 07:07 PM
Thoughts goto those in Spain, but the lefties are already starting their cries. I've seen it on other boards. It angers me...it bothers me. They cry that it's Spain's fault, in the same that it was the fault of the US for 9/11. Bah.
Thank you Spain for helping us, were with you now. Now lets go kick some terrorist backside.
Posted by:
Mashiki |
March 12, 2004 09:55 PM
Pardon je pour écrire seulement en anglais. Mon Français est très pauvre.
DissidentFrogman wrote:
>That 4 points demonstration of yours seems rather simplistic,
>but I imagine that was the poet speaking here, not the engineer.
One does not always have either the time or the space to fully support every point one might like to make. I apologize for anything which might have been lost in the abridgement.
>Saudi Arabia is not the only oil supplier.
A point well-understood by others. For some years the Saudis have been the world's swing producer, but this situation does not have to be permanent. Some have already posted on the idea that sufficient oversupply of oil will allow the world to say to the Saudis, "We don't need you". When excess world capacity equals Saudi pumping rate, that day will have arrived.
The point I would like everyone to understand is that this day arrives sooner with every barrel of demand reduced, and later with every barrel of demand increased. It is a simple 1/1 ratio.
>Pakinstan comes to mind as far as militant Islam is concerned
Follow that one step further. What is one of the most powerful promoters of militant Islam in Pakistan? It is the system of madrassas which have almost replaced the secular schools. Who pays for the madrassas and indoctrinates the teachers? The Wahhabists; specifically, the Saudis.
>I don't believe that switching our V8 powered wonders for humble bicycles to save on our oil purchases will help us in any way.
There I believe you are wrong. A V8 engine is almost wholly dependent on petroleum. But what are most V8 engines used for? Very few of them labor at nearly full power for long periods. Most V8 engines, and even most 6 and 4 cylinder engines, spend most of their time loafing at a small fraction of their peak power. Many spend a lot of their operating time at idle. This idling is very inefficient.
Batteries are actually a better source of power for short bursts, and electric motors are efficient, light and powerful. If you would like to see an example of what is possible near the limits of today's technology (and R&D prices!) see http://www.acpropulsion.com.
I've read that the average efficiency of American gasoline-fuelled vehicles (conversion of fuel to work) is 17%. Multiple measurements on different types of vehicles give numbers which agree with this to a surprising degree.
It is not very hard to make huge improvements when you are starting from a situation as poor as 17% efficiency. This is known as "low-hanging fruit", easy to pick.
I live in the USA, so I have spent more time studying US facts and figures than any others. (Pardon my parochial interests, but when the rest of the world concerns itself with my country's consumptive habits, why shouldn't I also?) It is a fact that the US consumption of motor gasoline is nearly equal to Saudi Arabia's entire production of crude oil: see http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/
petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_annual/psa_volume1/
current/txt/table_02.txt for the most recent figures available. It follows from this that a large movement in the USA from V8 engines to hybrid vehicles could severely reduce the worldwide market for crude oil, and move up the day that Saudi Arabia changes from essential supplier to disposable nuisance.
>To precipitate this regime change from outside - and in addition
>to the political example of democratic society that the Coalition
>is helping to build in Iraq - finding alternative sources of oil
>and *viable* energy alternatives would help a lot indeed.
This may surprise you, but I have reason to believe that these viable energy sources are right under our noses. The problem is that few people have the educated insight to see them for what they are; most only see them the way they have always been seen.
A century or so ago the best evening light came from liquid drawn from the heads of a rapidly-shrinking population of one species of whale. Kerosene (paraffin) replaced spermaceti for most uses a short time afterward, and it was itself supplanted by glowing filaments of carbon heated by electricity. Carbon was replaced by tungsten (wolfram), and now the thermal spectrum of tungsten is being replaced by the glow of sodium vapor in large lamps and the emissions of phosphors under the bombardment of ultraviolet photons in smaller lamps. Some lighting is going completely solid-state, to LEDs.
If we are going to advance, we have to open our minds to the advantages of change. Science and technology have opened doors since our last major shift. We must select the correct door and take ourselves into the future.
I do not just include the USA in this. Spain has its own part to play, as does France. Spain has just received a powerful reminder of the cost of giving money and power to murderers. France may receive its own soon. It is time (actually it is ten years past time) to take action, on the economic end as well as the military.
Remember that the Islamofascists cannot spread their ideology nearly so well if their home countries are hungry and broke.
>(And oh, please, let's not forget that "alternative" means that it
>costs the same, and offers the same output....)
I have reason to believe that the cost of one of the MOST radical "alternatives" is getting very close to the current retail price of gasoline in California; better yet, developments moving into pilot production could slash the price within the next few years. I hope to be able to dig into this later, with facts and figures.
I intend to support and explore these points elsewhere. Feel free to write me or take a look at my blog: http://ergosphere.blogspot.com; I will attempt to answer counter-arguments as my time permits.
Posted by:
Engineer-Poet |
March 13, 2004 03:52 AM
Sorry, but moving away from oil is not the answer. It's going to take far too long.
Take the damn oil away from them.
Occupy the 40kms to the East of Saudi Arabia where most of the oil is produced. Also, freeze all Saudi assets everywhere.
Posted by:
Westerner |
March 14, 2004 01:03 AM
>>Pardon je pour écrire seulement en anglais.
No need to apologize, I have absolutely no problem with that, on the contrary. After all, French is mostly used for abusive (and quickly deleted) comments down here.
I noticed you dismissed the poet and introduced the engineer, and thank you for a very informative comment.
However, I’m afraid I stand by my point as far as your initial equation is concerned: I found nothing in your argument to back up your demonstration - that I would summarize roughly as “no oil = end of Islamist terrorism” (I don’t suggest your equation is so blunt. It could be of course, any kind of variation: “no oil”, or “less oil” or “from a different source” or even “bankrupt the Saudi” equals “decisive blow to Islamism” or “victory is near”)
I’m not an engineer myself, so I may enter a mine field here, but still, I’ll have a go on the topic. The V8 bit was mostly an image, yet I understand it might not have been a proper one, since you seem to take it literally.
My point was (is) that scaling down our activity is not the good thing to do, particularly in the current context. I would be the first to see particular interest in high capacity batteries. Really. Not particularly for cars (because there is something with the gasoline engine that cannot be purported by other alternatives: any driving nut such as myself can tell you that there is a lot more to it than just the efficiency factor – but I digress.)
That our current car engines still have room for improvement, as you noted, is actually nothing new or surprising. Last time I looked, this is precisely what is happening since the beginning of this blessed invention (which was itself already an improvement over the previous means of transport and sources of energy). Improvement. Better engines, etc.
That was indeed the reason why I wrote “Our current state of technology doesn't allow us to give up on "their" oil yet.”
And emphasized on “yet”.
I learned quite interesting facts thank to your comment, but you apparently failed to provide the viable alternatives I was err, “demanding” – Instead, you’re still talking about a prospective future. How close it can be is actually of little importance: I never argued that it won’t happen or that we shouldn’t pursue these goals.
We are, and we will reach them (Unless you involuntarily made my point, I guess we’re in fact right on the same track, judging by your paragraph on the successive stages of lightning fuel).
You have reason to believe that these viable energy sources are right under our noses? I’d say we’re already using some of them (let’s not forget about our nuclear reactors, which already helped us a lot to become more independent – and far less polluting - from Middle East thugs such as the Saudi) and I guess the other are actually a bit farther than our nose.
Maybe say, right after the next turn.
In short, we’re going there and the day we could say “FY” to the Princes of the Desert (as well as “behave, or else…”) is coming closer. My point is: it’s too early yet, and since we need to keep on going at fast pace, we shall not starve our V8s.
Guess what? I have reasons to believe that the Saudi KNOW we don’t have any alternative ready right here, right know. Check this if you please: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3410
(actually a very important read for every American voter, if I may)
Back to what made me feel uncomfortable with your equation. I believe you misunderstood the reason why I mentioned Pakistan. You seem to hold a grudge against the Madrassas (and God knows I won’t blame you for that), but at the end of the day, there are two reasons why I don’t believe they’re so much of a concern: first, these are only indoctrination centers, not weapon factories or military bases. We have to keep an eye on them, but there’s nothing here out of the reach of any decent police forces and secret services. (And death squads too, if they start wearing explosive jackets and heading towards the next bus stop or train station.)
Next, the “students” are eventually nothing more than a ragtag good enough for Djihad. They can claim success against a dying Soviet army, but that’s just about everything they can do. They’re cannon fodder, no matter how expensive – or not – their training was for the Saudi princes. At worse, they will reach our cities, like they did in New York (I don’t think they could try the planes again) in Bali or in Madrid (that’s more of a concern, but again, I imagine that with some serious work and international cooperation, they could be traced and eliminated fairly easily)
So yes, the Saud are funding Madrassas in Pakistan (again, not really big news for this frogman), but that was not the reason why I mentioned Pakistan.
Nuke plans, remember?
We’re talking about state terrorism (I have a hard time believing that Musharraf “didn’t know”). Pakistan has little concern about the quantity of gas Americans are pouring in their SUVs. We could add North Korea – same story, with a record of state terrorism abroad. And we could notice that Pakistan’s expertise in nuclear came from China. Also, it seems that Iran is quite in the news with nuclear handiwork lately.
We won’t stop these people simply by cutting down our oil orders to the Saud. If you allow me this little irony: No it’s really not about Oil!
At least, it’s not that simple.
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
March 14, 2004 01:23 AM
Aren't most of the Spanish protestors carrying signs asking for "Peace", and accusing their leaders of "Lying"?
We seem to have alot in commen.
Posted by:
IXLNXS |
March 14, 2004 04:09 AM
Thanks Frogman. Spot on.
We really need to get rid of Socialism, Political Correctness at home, otherwise we will be inviting disaster after disaster. There is no substitute for understanding reality; wishful thinking leads straight to hell.
The hard decisions will be: Is it enoug to fix immigration or do we need a mass expulsion of of Arabs and Muslims? To what extent? How will it practically be performed?
I would like to point out that Multiculturalism (or plain stupidity) is a much better candidate for "root cause" (if there is one) for terrorism than any sins of the West.
Terrorism would not be a problem here if we had not invited them.
Posted by:
Peter |
March 14, 2004 09:48 AM
Peter,
While I fully agree with you that Socialism is the fifth column of this war (as it was during the Cold War), I certainly hope I won't live to see "mass expulsion" of any given ethnic or religious group.
For instance, what about Arabs who flew the Muslim world because they refuse to submit to Islam? (I use the verb submit on purpose, considering the meaning of the word "Islam")
Are you going to send them back?
What's disturbing in your statement, is that you happen to make the same mistake as the multiculturalists, albeit from the opposite perspective. They claim: "every Arabs and Muslims are angels", you claim "All of them are evil".
I would say Islam has a serious problem. It's oppressive, it's retarded, it plays on the frustration and the fears of a quarter of the world's population in order to progress and therefore it is dangerous for the rest of us.
It has to change, starting right now, or disappear if it can't manage the change.
I'd say, as Dinesh D'Souza astutely put it by catching on a statement of Tony Blair: sure, the great majority of the Muslims are not terrorists, nonetheless, the great majority of the terrorists are Muslims - and they are widely supported in the world (including of course by the aforementioned Socialists)
There are thinkers, scholars, journalists, laics - and even clerics - in the Muslim world and in the West who are aware of this and who fight for the change. In the Muslim world, they have to keep silent, as pointing at the fact that today's Islam is nothing but an oppressive abomination would be signing their own death sentence.
But what about those who flew and came to the West, in order to make their voice heard? What about Ibn Warraq for instance? Should we help them (and if possible, those who stayed in the Muslim world) or should we just round up everybody and move them somewhere else, in the hope that the problem will go away as well?
If we look back on the previous fight against the last threat to Civilization, Communism, I'm afraid the West already has a record of failures to help the dissidents who were speaking the truth and struggling in the right direction.
I hope we'll do better in our fight against militant Islam. First because they are on our side, and then because at the end of the day, it’s not about class (here goes the Socialists) and it’s not about race (Here goes today’s Multiculturalists, just like yesterday’s Nazis did. Here you go? I hope not…)
It’s about individuals and the objective value of the rules, ideas and beliefs they abide by (Yep, here I go)
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
March 14, 2004 02:48 PM
Jeez, DF, I love your blog :) Excellent posts here as well! Thanks to everyone!!
You're right: it's not about oil, it's not about class or race. But what will spell doom for the Sand Sheiks is the death of Wahhabism. And that, and that alone, these bastards will fight to the last.
Wahhabism provides their support: a pliable populace, submissive and emotional, who are more than willing to commit any atrocity. They **are** cannon fodder, no more and no less. And why? Because the rise of wahhabism represented the death of logic for these people. And with the death of logic comes the inevitable: cults of personality.
The islamic world has failed to grow since the 14th century. It stopped in its tracks hundreds of years ago and what we're seeing now is nothing more and nothing less than a replay of the Last Crusades. The disconnect between the Arab world and the west was a conscious one by the Arab leaders of the time who preached an insular message to their people, encouraging cutoff. Arab secular logic, never completely removed from the mullahs' review, was not so much displaced as morphed into a sick, self-aggrandizing mess of fallacies. The ultimate upshot is that the Arab world never had a reformation as the West did, and as a result their capacity for self-examination has been squelched by a pervasive culture of victimization.
Want to stop the terrorists? Eliminate wahhabism. How do we do that? It's long process. Keep encouraging those "free-thinkers" in the Arab world who see something wrong with the conventional wisdom of their rulers. Support those who itch for positive change, for freedom. Give those who would force the muslims to examine their own actions in light of reality an outlet to distribute their message. It will take a few generations -- hell, look at how long it took Luther to get his message across -- but the end result will be worth the effort.
For now, for us, the immediate solution is to silence those muslim "leaders" who are the proponents of the violence and the victimization. Remove them. Permanently. (Dead men have trouble spending money.) And allow the reformation to begin.
Posted by:
julie de maupin |
March 14, 2004 03:29 PM
Dissident Frogman wrote:
>The V8 bit was mostly an image, yet I understand it might not have been
>a proper one, since you seem to take it literally.
The V8 is actually an icon of the USA, both inside and outside the USA. The joke going around these days shows an M1 Abrams tank pointing its turret gun at
some ragged person, who is smiling back at it and asking "Does that thing have a
hemi?" (Note for non-Americans: the Chrysler 426 Hemi, named for its
hemispherical combustion chambers, is one of the classic muscle-car engines of all time.)
As you are a dissident frogman, I am an iconclastic American. I believe that this icon no longer serves any useful purpose, and it should be allowed to retire to the museums and classic car shows. Our roads, and the roads of the rest of the world, should belong to technology that's both better for us and worse for our declared enemies.
>My point was (is) that scaling down our activity is not the good thing
>to do, particularly in the current context.
I did not mean to imply that anything should be scaled down, save perhaps the height of some of the enormous vehicles coming out of Detroit. (Did I mention that I, personally, develop products for Detroit?) What we (the USA first, perhaps you too?) need to do is start making different trade-offs. Economy and safety should start being higher priorities than speed and power (though with hybrid technology you have the paradox of bigger batteries giving you MORE power at the same time you have GREATER economy), and we should recognize that economy is also a contributor to safety in the form of security for Western civilization.
>That was indeed the reason why I wrote “Our current state of technology
>doesn't allow us to give up on "their" oil yet.”
>And emphasized on “yet”.
>I learned quite interesting facts thank to your comment, but you apparently
>failed to provide the viable alternatives I was err, “demanding” ...
You may find this in my latest Blog entry "Is the tide turning?": http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/ (I truncated the long URL, so if you are reading this long after March 2004, look for the March 2004 archives). If you do not find what you are looking for, use the mail link provided on my page.
>You have reason to believe that these viable energy sources are right under
>our noses? I’d say we’re already using some of them (let’s not forget about
>our nuclear reactors, which already helped us a lot to become more
>independent – and far less polluting - from Middle East thugs such as the
>Saudi) and I guess the other are actually a bit farther than our nose.
That is not a bad point, but nuclear power is mostly used to generate electricity; nuclear power tends to replace coal, not oil. Most forms of transport (cars, trucks/lorries, buses) cannot use electricity; they can use exactly one type of liquid fuel, and almost all of it comes from crude oil. This is actually an easy thing to change, but we have to demand change.
>So yes, the Saud are funding Madrassas in Pakistan (again, not really big
>news for this frogman), but that was not the reason why I mentioned Pakistan.
>Nuke plans, remember?
After I wrote my first response above, I learned that Gal Luft and Anne Korin (of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, www.iags.org) claim that Saudi money had a lot to do with Pakistan's nukes. They make the claim here: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=11703028_1. Read the whole thing.
>We won’t stop these people simply by cutting down our oil orders to the Saud.
I never said we would. Reducing the demand for oil (by any means, whether greater efficiency or displacement by other sources of energy) is another front in the war, not the only front. Are you familiar with the war against Japan in 1941-45? The battles that got the press were fought by soldiers carrying guns, but the war was won by submarines which sank the Japanese freighters carrying raw materials to the homeland. Long before the war ended, the Japanese had no fuel for their trainer airplanes, and they could not train new fighter pilots. They could not make war materiel and get it to the front, so the Allied soldiers were coming against an enemy with poor arms and little food.
If we want to be successful in this war, we have to stop feeding the enemy.
Posted by:
Engineer-Poet |
March 14, 2004 03:43 PM
Engineer-Poet,
"I believe that this icon no longer serves any useful purpose, and it should be allowed to retire to the museums and classic car shows."
Don't take it too personally, but I'm always weary of people who claim that the solution for the better (and, for that matter, the "common good") goes through the suppression of "useless relics of the past". First, it usually ends in a ghastly way, and next, this is not how progress works.
My view of progress is, I guess, understandable by anybody looking at the history of our specie, and particularly that of the West (In terms of civilization. That means including Australia and, yes, Japan for instance) since we devised Capitalism, the most fruitful period in history, as far as progress is concerned: anybody can dream up, conceive and create a workable and better alternative. If it really is workable and better, then it will naturally impose itself (and the former solution will fall into disuse and retire to museum quietly), because that’s what Capitalism is about: aiming at the better.
If the preliminary requisite is to suppress coercively the former solution (the Communist way of “progress”), then it means the alternative is not good enough (even if it’s just “not yet”).
A friendly advice dear Engineer-Poet: engineering is good. Engineering society is not.
Having said that, I dare to repeat that we’re mostly arguing on details but fully agree on the essence (no pun intended, although “essence” also means “gasoline” in French). There are indeed different fronts, and regime change in Saudi Arabia should be (is, I hope) at the top of the agenda – as far as we manage intelligently another crucial aspect of strategy: attrition. That was my point.
As for the Saudi money paying for Pakis nukes, I wouldn’t be surprised indeed. But what with North Korea, and a double-faced Communist China? What with Iran? What with the grim perspective coming from Russia, and a Putin who starts to show a very unpleasant face?
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
March 14, 2004 04:34 PM
Last I checked, Iran and Russia are major oil exporters. Petrodollars buy nukes. Take the Americans out of the market, and it gets harder to buy nukes.
Posted by:
Yamaneko |
March 15, 2004 03:47 AM
>I'm always weary of people who claim that the solution for the better (and, for that
>matter, the "common good") goes through the suppression of "useless relics of the
> past". First, it usually ends in a ghastly way, and next, this is not how progress works.
Sometimes the suppression comes as a consequence of other forces that we all agree to be for the better. For instance:
1.) Steam-engine train locomotives are museum pieces and historical curiosities. They are too slow, not powerful enough, require too many fuel/water stops and pollute too much to be acceptable for modern rail transport. They were everywhere a mere 60 years ago, but today they have been completely replaced by diesel, diesel-electric or even all-electric traction. This replacement happened despite the greater cost of diesel fuel versus coal and the cost required for electrifying rail routes.
2.) Vacuum-tube electronics have been almost entirely replaced by transistors, the exceptions being some high-end audiophile gear (curiosities) and certain categories which 50 years ago did not exist as consumer items (microwave ovens).
3.) Flat-head, side-valve automobile engines are relics, not produced for many years. They lost too much energy as heat and did not breathe well enough to produce the power/weight desired by consumers. An overhead-valve engine is bulkier, has more parts and costs more, but today they have the entire automotive market.
4.) Pollution regulations have eliminated the sale of new 2-stroke motorcycles (and their emissions of unburned fuel and oil) from the USA.
Some of these changes happened over a very short time, yet few people really cared all that much. The catalytic converter caused another gas pump marked "Unleaded" to appear for a while, but now that's all there is; the air is a lot cleaner as a consequence, and cars are still cars. We have other changes coming, due in part to government incentives to purchase hybrid cars. Toyota Prius buyers sit on a waiting list measured in months, and Ford just licensed Toyota's technology.
>engineering is good. Engineering society is not.
The USA currently spends about USD 50 billion (that is 5e10 dollars in scientific notation) per year to protect the Middle East oil-trade routes alone. Total spending on defense needs related to oil or Arab military threats was a much larger part of our defense budget, roughly half of USD 360 billion - and that was before the USD 87 billion requested for the first year of the Iraq affair.
The USA uses about 110 billion gallons of motor gasoline per year, plus about half that much "distillate fuel oil" which fuels diesels.
If the defense costs related to oil were charged directly to motor fuel, the pump price of fuel in the USA would roughly double. Speaking as an American who knows Americans, if motor gasoline cost $3.00 to $3.50 per gallon there would not be many people wanting to buy Hemi-powered trucks for driving to work. Had this change occurred ten years ago there would be many more people already driving cars like the Prius and there would already be many different models using such technology. You would not need government diktat to achieve this end. All you would have to do is charge the costs to the goods which produce those costs, and let people choose freely between the alternatives. (I have been saying this for ten years. Just because nobody wants to listen does not mean it is not true. ;-)
Let me reverse that argument: we have been indulging in social engineering for many years, using subsidy of petroleum consumption with our tax and defense policies. These subsidies have resulted in great problems, including despotic regimes which sponsor terrorism. It is time to change these policies, remove the subsidies and force the necessary adjustments to begin.
Posted by:
Engineer-Poet |
March 15, 2004 04:21 AM
Engineer-Poet:
--------
“Sometimes the suppression comes as a consequence of other forces that we all agree to be for the better. For instance:
1.) Steam-engine train locomotives are museum pieces and historical curiosities. They are too slow, not powerful enough,…” (and the rest of your paragraph)
------
Well, yes, and this is what I wrote exactly. I don’t see how that’s supposed to contradict me, when I write “If it really is workable and better, then it will naturally impose itself (and the former solution will fall into disuse and retire to museum quietly)”
In fact – and again - it’s a direct contradiction to the people who think: we shall stop this and that and remove this and that, because We Hold The Truth and We Know What’s Better For You.
If you see what I mean.
--------
“Speaking as an American who knows Americans, if motor gasoline cost $3.00 to $3.50 per gallon there would not be many people wanting to buy Hemi-powered trucks for driving to work. Had this change occurred ten years ago there would be many more people already driving cars like the Prius and there would already be many different models using such technology. You would not need government diktat to achieve this end.”
-----
And as a French who knows the French, I can tell you that there is nothing new here that’s not already played by the French government, and for years. Gasoline is mostly taxes (between 70 and 80% of the price) in France. It’s more expensive than many luxury products.
This change occurred more than 10 years ago. Surprisingly enough – and while France had even more reasons than the US to find an alternative to oil – we didn’t made the big switch you’re promoting so passionately. Battery powered vehicles are not exactly “a la mode” around here (bare a few marginal experiences – like La Rochelle and its small fleet of small Citroen AX that were paid by the taxpayers’ money, and then rent out to the same taxpayer), and God knows how influential our Ecoterrorists are, compared to yours. But we’re paying a high price for gas, all right.
I’m impressed by your fancy numbers on US expenses to protect whatever you believe they protect, and your smart calculation that cutting these costs to report them on the gas price will push your agenda forward.
But being a bit less isolationist, I see the following: I imagine that protecting oil supply is required nominally because the Middle East is a shit hole of violence and despotic regimes. Therefore, in getting rid of the said despotic regimes and helping democracies to arise, it shall replace despots with democrats, thugs with free traders, slaves with free workers, and additionally, turn all this jolly good people into wealthy customers, opening new markets and business opportunities for the rest of the world. Since oil will cease to be a strategic lever in the hands of despots aiming at our destruction to become what it’s supposed to be (a negotiable good among others), at the end of the day, that precious money “wasted” on protecting a vital supply will not be necessary anymore, and could even be used to advance your agenda.
It’s a bit more of a proactive solution and definitely a win-win situation, which I really miss in your proposition. Indeed, I’d rather have the Middle East filled with free and wealthy workers and customers, than with bitter people sitting idle on useless oil wells because we’re driving nifty battery powered cars.
Somehow, I don’t believe this would appease the rancor they have against the West… And at “best”, if they can’t come after us anymore (as you suggest, and as I doubt anyway, since there are other ways than oil to fund terror organizations) they would be fighting civil wars after civil wars down there. I’m not happy with that either.
As a direct consequence, I don’t believe that your reversal of the argument holds water, particularly if you’re ignoring – or putting aside – one part of the equation.
In any case, this proposition of yours demonstrate how you fall into the pit I was warning you against (“engineering society is not”).
Again, my position is the following: as an entrepreneur, I expect an engineer to propose workable and better solutions, not to impose them. As a customer, I expect the said entrepreneur/engineer couple to come up with the best possible product, not to compel me to buy it by raising the prices of the competition.
Granted, this is not exactly the Communist way (you’re not ready to coercively change one thing for another, aren’t you?) but this is worse in a sense: this is the European Social-democrat. “Hey, we can’t put a gun on their temple and have them choose this instead of that, since we’re in this democracy thing and all. So let’s just raise the price on this, in order to “incite” them to “choose” that “freely”.”
I also keep in mind that the aforementioned “that” you want us to “choose” freely is still not ready for prime time. (according to your own words, you’re still talking about a prospective future… Or an alternative past)
Interesting how you believe that one would not need government diktat to reach such ends before the products and the market are ready… Maybe you should spend the next 10 years in France, just to see how it feels to live under the benevolent rule of politicians who shape society according to the advices of their board of technocrats (including engineers, yes. Sorry ‘bout that).
In the end, I do understand that, after the Madrassas, you apparently hold a severe grudge against oil industry and consumption. You probably have your reasons, but the disturbing thing is that your concern for the fight against Islamofascists may appear from time to time to be mainly nothing more than a justification to your distaste for gas powered vehicles. I hope it’s not the case.
Yamaneko:
You’re on the verge of “An inexpensive car is rare, all rare things are expensive, therefore an inexpensive car is expensive.”
Petrodollars buy many different things *besides* nukes. An awful lot more actually. Ready to cut that as well?
Don’t answer before you carefully considered the alternative.
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
March 15, 2004 10:13 AM
TheDissidentFrogman writes:
>Well, yes, and this is what I wrote exactly. I don’t see how that’s supposed to contradict me...
Perhaps we are mis-communicating.
>In fact – and again - it’s a direct contradiction to the people who think: we shall stop this
>and that and remove this and that, because We Hold The Truth and We Know What’s
>Better For You.
That is indeed a danger of government. However, my government is already spending a very large amount of money to secure certain parts of the globe. This spending would not be necessary (rather, any risk would come to someone else and would not be part of the USA's national interest) if the USA did not need to import oil. If the users of oil are not taxed to pay for the resulting expense, they are subsidized by others; they do not take financial responsibility for their actions.
You are seeing a danger of excessive government power, but I am making a point with a very important difference: my government is already exercising this power, and in so doing it is *creating a market failure that is neither necessary nor efficient*. You are worried about bureaucratic despotism, I am worried about a tragedy of the commons.
I hope to have time to respond to your other points in greater depth later.
(I recently learned that the French word for "deep", as in deep water, is the same as "deep" as in deep philosophy. Profond? Very interesting.)
Posted by:
Engineer-Poet |
March 15, 2004 10:53 PM
Here are some excerpts from the conclusions of an Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) report that I just finished reading. Some of these conclusions were already familiar to me (I concluded last year that the oil-price spike from the unrest in Venezuela would delay or disrupt the economic recovery in the US), and some were news (I had no idea that the economic penalty from OPEC's monopoly abuses were as large as 1 year's GNP for the USA). You can read the full report here: http://www-cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/pdf/ORNL_TM_2000_152.pdf
I want to quote some of the conclusions, add my comments and use them to explain my motivations. Quotes begin and end with asterisks.
*** Even over a period as long as thirty years, economic costs
on the order of $3.4 trillion ($7.1 trillion present value)
constitute a serious national problem. For comparison, the sum
of total outlays for national defense from 1970 to 1999 was more
than twice as large, $8.9 trillion (1998 $). Total net interest
payments by the federal government were of the same general
magnitude, $4.6 trillion (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, table 543).
The present value of these past losses amounts to $7 trillion,
almost an entire year's GDP. Significant oil price shocks
preceded every recession of the past three decades and every one
of the three significant oil price spikes was followed by a
recession. Clearly, oil dependence ranks among the most
significant economic problems the United States has faced over
the past thirty years. ***
You are wrong about my feelings regarding oil companies. I have nothing against them. My good will does not extend to oil-cartel countries. To the extent that their national policy has negative effects on my country and me personally I will advocate measures to counter those effects and reduce or eliminate their power.
*** Heavily taxing motor fuels, as many OECD countries do, can
impose a continuing burden on the economy and is only partially
effective against the exercise of monopoly power. The real
solution lies elsewhere, in creating new energy options and new
transportation technologies. The ultimate solution to oil
dependence lies in changing the fundamental factors that give
the OPEC cartel market power and create the United State's oil
dependence problem. The U.S. must reduce it's oil consumption
and, by means of research, development, and meaningful policies,
create low-cost alternatives to petroleum, enhance the recovery
of both conventional and unconventional oil resources, and
advance energy efficient technologies for transportation.
Technological advances in oil exploration and development have
been a factor in keeping petroleum prices low during the 1990s
(Anderson, 1998). ***
I see electricity as one of the "low-cost alternatives to petroleum". Electricity can be made from energy sources as varied as atomic fission and ocean waves. Once you have built a car which can take part of its motive power as electricity, it can run on anything that can generate electricity for as long as its batteries hold out. This is one route to energy security.
*** Advanced automotive technology being developed by the
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles would increase the
ability to respond to a gasoline price shock by 50%, according
to a recent analysis (Greene, 1997), saving the economy billions
of dollars annually (Schock et al., 1999). ***
The PNGV is dead, killed by the Bush administration as one of its first actions upon taking office in 2001. However, the Plug-In Hybrid (PIH) or CalCar has the potential to increase effective fuel economy to over 100 MPG (less than 2.4 l/100 km), reducing oil consumption and increasing energy security. The widespread use of such cars would also make oil consumption far more elastic, because consumers could both substitute electricity for gasoline and also stretch their all-electric driving range by driving more slowly. Last, the batteries of those cars could be used as a buffer for the electrical grid, helping to prevent blackouts (I believe both our nations had experience with widespread blackouts last summer).
This is why I think the USA needs such vehicles. Maybe France does too; you tell me.
And maybe Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, and Nigeria and Venezuela need us to use them. Yes, maybe THEY need US to use them. Are you familiar with the concept of the "curse of oil"? The exploitation of large oil fields in a country is associated with it becoming poorer, not richer (see Venezuela 30 years ago and today). The concentration of power in the hands of a government oil monopoly is associated with the government becoming more despotic, not more democratic (see Nigeria, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iraq).
Perhaps the best thing we can do for the people of those countries is to stop buying and using their oil, and force their governments to depend on the talents of their people. If the government only needs oil, it can discard the people as irrelevant; if the government rises or falls upon the talents and welfare of its people, it has to treat them well. I'm sure that Ken Saro Wiwa would have agreed.
Posted by:
Engineer-Poet |
March 16, 2004 04:00 AM
