Jimmy Carter working to weakening the USA - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-17-2006, 09:32 AM

You are right, America should conduct its policy based on international popularity and polls.

roachboy · 09-17-2006, 09:44 AM

mojo:

because this administration has chosen to use the discourse of morality to justify its actions, how it is perceived internationally as a viable "moral agent" if you like is fundamental.
the legitimacy not only of the administration's action, but of the administration itself rests on it.
this was a choice the bush people made in the period immediately after 9/11/2001--and they have been consistent in their obsessive use of this language.
so the problems that their actions create for them are fundamentally their own fault for choosing a strategy for marketing their ideology that is, quite simply, extremely vulnerable. the illusion of strength of purpose it provides is a very thin and tenous one.
while the discourse of morality may appeal to the far right christian set, in the real world, it is a very risky tack to adopt.

oddly enough, this lesson was also learned by the carter administration, but in a very different context with a very different (and to my mind far more sane) agenda behind it. maybe that is an underlying reason why the far right seems to be having fun the past couple days in excoriating carter--he threatens the illusion of monopoly on morality that the bush people like to claim for themselves.

i think colin powell is right about the implications of the practices associated with the bushwar in its most general sense for the legitmacy of the united states as an international actor. i think mcain and warner are right as well.

the bush administration is the worst enemy the discourses of democracy and morality have had for some time.
the arguments that you have been making, which are all based on raison d'etat, overlook what machiavelli was very clear about: if you are going to wrap your actions in claims to morality, you cannot in fact be moral---but you MUST maintain the appearance of consistency, otherwise you will be reviled.
and even you would have to admit that, at this juncture, the bush administration is reviled.
everywhere.
you might not like it, but you can't deny it.

this points to a significant political problem that you cannot simply wish away.
there is little to be done after a loss of legitimacy.

dc_dux · 09-17-2006, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

You are right, America should conduct its policy based on international popularity and polls.

I dont think anyone said our policy should be based on international popularity and polls, but nice attempt at trying to spin it that way because you dont like the resuts.

The US can never win the global war on terrorism alone, and not understanding the value of having support of foreign governments AND the citizens of those countries is short-sighted and jingoistic.

Mojo, would you agree that terrorist cells are likely in place throughout Europe and the Mid East. Do you not see the downside of having citizens in those countries more sympathetic to terrorists than to the US?

Charlatan · 09-17-2006, 02:57 PM

DC, I think it is a stretch to suggest that citizens in those countries would be more sympathetic to the terrorists than to the US.

I more relevant point, as far as Europe is concerned anyway, is that they are democracies and a democratically elected goevernment can lose its support base by making decisions to support a war that is not popular at home.

European nations recognize that their people do not support adding their arms to the folly of Iraq. To do so, would be political suicide.

Elphaba · 09-17-2006, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Do you not see the downside of having citizens in those countries more sympathetic to terrorists than to the US?

Charlatan, I think dc_dux has asked a legitimate question. I would only alter his statement to include insurgents in the case of Iraq. Disaffected citizens of Great Britain were responsible for the tube bombings, reportedly due to the occupation of Iraq. This is just one example, but others exist as well. Reasonably strong allies such as Egypt and Jordan are now soured toward us as well. We did far more harm than good in global relations with this ill advised adventure.

Willravel · 09-17-2006, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Do you not see the downside of having citizens in those countries more sympathetic to terrorists than to the US?

In the past 10 years, the US lost to terrorism 5 consulate members in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in 12/6/04, 2 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on 6/9/04, 1 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on 5/29/04, 2,992 on 9/11, 17 in Aden, Yemen 10/12/2000, and 19 in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia 6/25/96, totalling in about 3036. I mourn for these people and their loved ones, but ydo you have any idea how many people we have killed in the past 10 years? Do you have any idea how many Arabs we have killed in the past 10 years? Do you have any idea how many Muslims we have killed in the past 10 years? Do you know how many have died because we supply Israel with weapons? And finally, do you know how many of those terrorist attacks that claimed American lives in the past 10 years were carried out by Iraqis?

I do see a downside to people becoming sympathetic to terrorism. Terrorism as a political device is extreemly dangerous and even as a last resort cannot be condoned. I certianally understand their thought process, though. It's easy to interpret the US actions in the past 20-30 years as being that of an empire (and I don't mean empire like the apple, I have nothing against apples and I support them), and empires have no place in a world that claims to be more and more democratic. As we can see throuhout history, the most succesful tool against an empire is terrorism.

To make my point clear: with an empire comes terrorist resistence, always. Whether you believe the US to be an empire or not, our actions clearly draw the connection in many people's minds.

host · 09-17-2006, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Most of you kids are too young to remember Carter, I'm old enough but barely.

The Hallmark of his presidency was the Iran hostage crisis, gas lines, double digit inflation, and his incompetence at dealing with just about any major issue.

Anyways no need to harp on his presidency, he did his bit and gave us 12 years of Republican presidents.

But I draw the line at this....

Jimmy, who was apparently out of the loop even when he was president, apparently wants to break up the US alliance with GB over the war on terror. You know there is something 'special' about the president. The office itself commands respect and if ANYONE knows how hard it is to be president it should be Carter who had such a hard time.

He even admits he has no real knowledge of what is going on when he says

So he doesn't know whats going on yet feels the need, as an ex-president, to verbally attack our strongest ally?

I think I agree with his mother ...

Sometimes, when I look at my children, I say to myself ~~"Lillian, you should have remained a virgin." -- Lillian Carter (mother of Jimmy Carter)

I invite you to peruse the following evidence that the betrayal of the economic wellbeing and the present national security of the US, was intentionally planned and implemented,, by the politicians and the party that you support, despite the vision, planning, legislation, and appropriations of funds, by the very former president who you are on display here, mocking, apparently because you are unaware of the details of the "history", posted arleady on this thread, and...... at this link:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108616 and here:

Quote:

Arco Solar, Solarex Corp (NAICS: 333414, 333611 ) , SOLAREX CORP, STANDARD OIL CO (INDIANA)
Lueck, Thomas J.

New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Oct 16, 1983. pg. A.18
New York Times Company Oct 16, 1983

The Sun, long a source of power in mythology, may soon be an actual source of household electricity - at least in bright places like America's Sun Belt. But some of the people working to develop the cells that generate electricity from sunlight are concerned that the oil business is controlling more and more of the solar industry.

This trend was highlighted last month when the Standard Oil Company of Indiana purchased Solarex, a Rockville, Md., company that last year ranked as the second largest United States manufacturer of photovoltaic cells. Arco Solar, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Atlantic Richfield Company, was the largest. Ranking third was the Solar Power Corporation, owned by Exxon.

<b>''Virtually all of the photovoltaics industry is owned by Big Oil,'' said Scott Sklar, political director for the Solar Lobby</b>, an organization that advocates expanding development of solar technology. ''And the problem with that is these huge corporations don't have the kind of commitment you find in small innovative companies.'' Some consumer groups profess even greater worries about the oil industry's motives. <b>''The major oils see solar power as a competing source of energy, and they want to control it and slow it down,''</b> said Edwin Rothchild, a spokesman for the Citizen Energy Labor Coalition, another lobbying organization. But many experts in alternative energy research maintain that, if not for large investments by the oil companies, photovoltaic development would be grinding to a halt. ''If the oil companies are a menace, they are the most benevolent menace you could find, because nobody else seems willing to spend a dime,'' said Mitchell Diamond, an energy analyst for Booz Allen and Hamilton, Inc., a consulting firm.

Solarex, which was formed in 1973, lost $10 million in 1982. John Corsi, its president, said the company had been aggressively but unsuccessfully seeking a fresh infusion of cash from outside sources since March. He added that a merger with Amoco, which already held 35 percent of Solarex's stock, became the only alternative. Amoco, which paid $20 a share for a piece of Solarex in 1982, acquired the 65 percent of the company's shares it did not already own last month for only $2.50 a share, or a total of $12.2 million.

So far, the photovoltaic cells introduced to the world market are producing a minuscule amount of power compared to other electrical generating equipment. Mr. Diamond estimated sales of photovoltaic cells in 1982 at $90 million, an increase of 180 percent in two years. But he said these devices were capable of generating a total of only 9 megawatts of electricity, compared to the more than 500 megawatts generated by a single conventional power plant.

''We remain convinced that we can be competitive with coal-fired plants in the Sun Belt by 1990,'' said James H. Caldwell, senior vice president for manufacturing and research at Arco Solar. Atlantic Richfield does not disclose the financial status of its solar company, and Mr. Caldwell declined to say if the company has been profitable or how much money it is spending on research and development.

As the largest manufacturer of photovoltaic cells, Arco Solar specializes in a cell designed to recharge batteries. Other American companies are selling larger cells designed to generate power in remote locations not served by other sources of electricity, such as farms and villages in developing countries. Some Japanese companies, meanwhile, have begun marketing pocket calculators and digital watches powered by tiny cells.

Despite his own company's goals, Mr. Caldwell acknowledged that others in the field may be forced to scale down. The most important products of the industry ''will require a very high level of investment, and people aren't exactly knocking down doors to invest'' he said.

<h3>Throughout most of the 1970's, the Federal Government functioned as one of the largest sources of photovoltaic research money. Those funds have been sharply reduced. In 1980, the Department of Energy administered $797 million in research and development grants for renewable energy projects. This year, those grants have fallen to $262 million.

Several major corporations outside the oil industry have either withdrawn from photovoltaic research or put it on the back burner.</h3> The RCA Corporation, which was a leader in research aimed at the most advanced forms of photovoltaic cells, sold its technology to Solarex earlier this year for an undisclosed price. Texas Instruments Corporation, which spent $20 million of its own and Federal money on a major photovoltaics research project for which many experts held high hopes, suspended work in the area two weeks ago.

Despite successful initial results of the project, Texas Instruments ''decided not to spend the $100 million that would be needed over the next four years'' to develop manufacturing techniques for its photovoltaic cells, said Richard Purdue, a company spokesman. Such decisions are what lead observers of the industry to say that a continued infusion of cash by the oil companies is essential.

At Solarex, Mr. Corsi said it will take ''very, very deep pockets to stay ahead of photovoltaics technology; we are fortunate that the oil companies are standing in.''

Quote:

Arco Solar, Pacific Gas & Electric Co (NAICS: 221122, Sic:4931, Duns:00-691-2877 )
BLAKESLEE, SANDRA
CALIFORNIA VALLEY, Calif., Dec. 1
New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Dec 4, 1983. pg. A.88

A large solar energy plant began partial operation here this week as one of hundreds of projects in California's drive to develop alternative energy sources. Some people expect such sources to supply 10 percent of the state's power needs by the end of this decade.

Unfazed by stable oil prices and the higher costs of exotic energy, California is acting to transform wind, sunlight, rice chaff, underground steam, falling water and even cow manure into electricity consumers can afford.

The newest project is a 6.5-megawatt photovoltaic plant that converts sunlight directly into electricity, which is expected to supply 2,000 homes when it is completed next year. It is being built by Arco Solar for the purpose of selling electricity to the Pacific Gas and Electric utility.

The plant, near the San Andreas earthquake fault, is often praised as physically safe and environmentally sound. Yet the technology is fundamentally unproved. Questions of long-term reliability, cost reduction and compatability with conventional utility systems have not been answered.

Moreover, photovoltaics, a technology that makes electricity without combustion or heat, is one of the most expensive new energy forms. The new plant's cost, which the company keeps secret, is believed to be astronomical.

Nevertheless, the project illustrates the state's strategy for developing new energy sources. California will soon have four photovoltaic plants that are expected to benefit all the interest groups involved: consumers, politicians, regulators, utilities and manufacturers. Coal and Atom Plants Opposed

The reason, according to energy experts around the country, is California's unusual social and regulatory climate. With strong public opposition to coal-burning and nuclear power plants, utilities here are highly dependent on imported oil and natural gas. As an alternative, utility regulators have pushed the renewable energy sources such as wind, water and sunlight.

In the late 1970's the state declared it would produce 10 percent of all its power from renewable sources by 1990, said John Quinley of the California Public Utilities Commission. ''We will reach our goal well before the end of the decade,'' he said in an interview.

Today, 2,500 megawatts, or about 5 percent of the state's power supply, is generated by innovative systems such as miniature dams; geothermal, solar and wind methods, and cogeneration, which captures waste heat. Five years ago such sources did not exist.

California's benign weather has helped develop many of these sources. But such technologies can be used in many other states, experts say.

California's energy plan, begun when Edmund G. Brown Jr. was Governor and carried on by his successor, George Deukmejian, has three key elements: generous tax credits, tough regulation and public popularity.

These elements have prompted extensive business investment in renewable energy, made utilities flexible and led politicians to support the program even through recent budget difficulties.

The new plant here shows how each California interest group calculates ''what's in it for me?'' and then joins the effort to build solar plants.

Utilities benefit, according to the chairman of Pacific Gas and Electric, Frederick Mielke, because they can postpone building new power plants.

Like other alternative power sources, the new solar plant is financed privately, and electricity produced is purchased by the utility at a cost equivalent to burning oil. In California that is now up to 8 cents a kilowatt hour.

By purchasing electricity from such independent, third-party producers, ''we feel we will cut our need to build new capacity by 38 percent'' over the next 10 years, Mr. Mielke said in a telephone interview.

Counting today's hydroelectric and geothermal sources, he said, the utility generates more than half its power from renewable sources. Some of these sources are intermittent since they are affected by weather. But he said, ''We can always store oil and gas and use them as backup to our renewables.'' Made Competitive by Tax Credits

Businessmen who help develop the new energy sources come out ahead because of tax credits. Conventional energy enjoys enormous subsidies, said Scott Sklar, director of the Solar Lobby in Washington, D.C. Tax credits allow solar and other renewable sources to compete.

''Tax credits make wind power competitive with traditional grid power,'' said William Murray of Strategies Unlimited, an energy consulting firm in Mountain View, Calif. ''Photovoltaics moves in pretty close.''

The advantage to a company such as Arco Solar, an Atlantic Richfield subsidiary that manufactures solar panels and designed the new plant, is that it can cut its unit production costs because of the increases in output.

A Federal law recently upheld by the Supreme Court requires utilities to pay third-party producers as much as would be paid for power from sources it avoided using, which here means those of oil and gas. Thus Arco's photovoltaic plant is economical in California but would not be in states using cheap coal.

Utility regulators, who in recent years fined California utilities millions of dollars for not developing renewable energy sources fast enough, are pretty happy these days, said Mr. Quinley of the Public Utilities Commission.

''Our job is to protect rate payers,'' he said. When a utility avoids spending money to build a plant, the ratepayer benefits.

The third-party plants are limited by law to producing no more than 80 megawatts, which is low in contrast to the capacity of fossil-fuel plants. But the private producers like the photovoltaic plant can be developed quickly, he said, to meet California's slowly growing demand for new power. Taxpayers Seen Benefiting

The plant, situated 50 miles from Pacific Gas and Electric's 2,190-megawatt Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, will be completed in less than a year, Mr. Quinley said, and eventually its peak generating capacity will rise from 6.5 to 16.5 megawatts. <h3>The nuclear plant, begun in 1968, is still not operating.</h3>

California's taxpayers will benefit from the photovoltaic plant in several ways, said Paul Maycock, president of Photovoltaic Energy Systems, a consulting firm in Alexandria, Va.

Taxpayers do bear a current burden in subsidizing the plant, he said. But they get back jobs because half all photovoltaic panels are now made in California. They also get energy security as less oil is imported and lower future costs for the solar devices.

''We figure the taxes workers in the photovolatic industry will pay over the next 10 years will equal the tax credits,'' Mr. Maycock said.

Finally, elected officials in California win votes by supporting solar projects, according to many polls. In July the Legislature extended the tax credit three years despite a budget crisis that cut other popular programs.

From 300 to 400 independent power projects are now under way, Mr. Quinley said. A mountain pass near San Francisco has more than 700 wind machines. Agricultural wastes are being turned into electricity, and animal feedlots turn manure into fuel.

Thus, he said, the state is both ''nickle and diming'' itself toward energy independence and developing expensive sources such as solar power.

<b>By the way, you are still supporting the traitorous menace perpetrated on the American people, and on the rest of western civilization, carried out now by former oil "biz" executives, Bush, and the former ceo of the largest oil services corp in the world, stock symbol, "HAL", your VP, Dick Cheney.</b>
HAL quadrupled in price, from the level where it traded on the NYSE in early 2003, on the eve of the Iraqi invasion, and it's peak, ealier this year......

Would it be too much of a "mind fuck" to consider that Carter met the US growing dependence on foreign oil, "head on", drafting a 3 legged plan of conservation and price deregulation, strategic reserve stockpiling, and research, public funding,and tax credits to promote new and alternative energy resources, that was prescient enough to avoid the negative effects on progress that swings in free market pricing. and the natural tendency of wealthy competitors of alternative energy to buy up the fledgling industry and stifle it's growth?

Is it possible, at all, for you to consider that <b>the opposite</b> of what you believe, what you stand behind politically, is most likely more accurate......that Carter put our country on the correct path, towards balanced trade, foreign energy independence, national security that doesn't depend on cronyism from the money and influence of the oil and defense industries, and the "politics of fear" that is required to attract votes and to blind the electorate as they are made less safe and less prosperous, mired in astronomical debt? Can you not even suspect that this is the legacy of Reagan and the two Bush's? The proof is in what happened to alternative energy and the program of tax credits and government funded research that Carter persuaded the congress to pass and to fund. The treasury debt numbers show which administrations cut the taxes on the rich and domestic spending, while they continued to grow the government and accumulate the debt, and which presidential administrations reversed the growth of debt, slowed military spending, enjoyed better foreign relations with other nations, operated in a more open and accountable manner with the electorate, and stifled oil industry profits, while protecting the environment and public land, lessened the poverty rate, and the number of Americans without health insurance.

Does it puzzle you at all, that Reagan could destroy Carter's energy reform initiatives, end the tax credits that were vital and offered pay back in so many ways....from new employment in the alternative energy industry, to savings in military spending for a nation relieved of the dependence on foreign oil, and the cost, that we've experience, avoidably for 20 years? Does the initiation of a period of tax cutting and military spending, all to insure that the "fear" message would enrich the defense industry and attract the votes, that caused a 12 year federal borrowing "spree", that increased the treasury debt, by a factor of 4-1/2 times, the existing debt as Carter's single term ended, give you pause? Hasn't the last six years, going from reduced oil industry profits, elimination of deficit spending, reduced military spending, to the opposite.....and a new, six year deficit of $2750 billion, cause you any doubt?

Can you consider that former oil industry executives, as US president and Vice president, and the cronyism and influence of multi national oil corps. that they've brought into our government with them, are a cancer on the fiscal health or our nation, on our security, and on our legacy to our children....a pox on all of our houses, that we just got through enduring, as recently as in 1993, and here it is again?

If the newly minted treasury debt, the oil and defense industry profits, the message of fear, are not all a repeat of the post Carter period in America, than what are they? How stupid do you think we are? We've opposed the influence, money, and the agenda of "big oil", and of the defense industry, on our governance, and on the quality of our lives, since high school, et tu?

dc_dux · 09-17-2006, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

DC, I think it is a stretch to suggest that citizens in those countries would be more sympathetic to the terrorists than to the US.

I more relevant point, as far as Europe is concerned anyway, is that they are democracies and a democratically elected goevernment can lose its support base by making decisions to support a war that is not popular at home.

European nations recognize that their people do not support adding their arms to the folly of Iraq. To do so, would be political suicide.

Charlantan, it goes well beyong the democractic governments of Europe loosing their base by supporting Bush.

Bush is the face of America and among the citizens of much of the world, he is the bullying Ugly American - perceived as an arrogant cowboy who tells the world "do it my way or fuck off." That does not generate sympathy or support for America. More and more, opinion among foreigners is reaching the point of "they (the US) deserve what they get."

host · 09-17-2006, 07:15 PM

Now, there is an ominous new report that our "oil industry run" government, may be planning a "double or nothing" military move in the M.E., timed with the eve of the midtern, november election in the US:

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...535316,00.html
What War With Iran Would Look Like
A conflict is no longer quite so unthinkable. Here's how the U.S. would fight such a war - and the huge price it would have to pay to win it
By MICHAEL DUFFY
Posted Friday, Sep. 15, 2006

The first message was routine enough: A "Prepare to Deploy" order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1. But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. The CNO had asked for a rundown on how a blockade of those strategic targets might work. When he didn't like the analysis he received, he ordered his troops to work the lash up once again.

What's going on? The two orders offered tantalizing clues. There are only a few places in the world where minesweepers top the list of U.S. naval requirements. And every sailor, petroleum engineer and hedge-fund manager knows the name of the most important: the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide bottleneck in the Persian Gulf through which roughly 40% of the world's oil needs to pass each day. Coupled with the CNO's request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed—but until now largely theoretical—prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.

The following, 16 year old reporting, speaks volumes of the decisions that got us here, as well as the Aug. 16, Bush comments in my sig. "Free market" is a euhpemism for selling out the interests of almost all Americans for the enrichment of a corrupt, corporatist class of petroleum and defemse industry interests. 26 years ago, and again in 2004, Voters has another choice, but they voted in reaction to rhetoric of fear and on "maintaining a strong military", and in the 2004 election, Americans did not even face a rival super power to "re=arm", against.

Quote:

DANIEL S. GREENBERG
WASHINGTON
Metro; PART-B; Metro Desk
Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 13, 1990. pg. 3

Daniel S. Greenberg is editor and publisher of Science & Government Report, a Washington-based newsletter.

Count the 1980s as the squandered decade for energy research aimed at reducing America's risky dependence on foreign oil. And credit the loss to the Reagan administration, which gutted the government's energy-research programs-and redeployed much of the savings to nuclear-weapons research. A sager Bush administration has been repairing some of the damage with selective infusions of funds. But in general, energy research remains in the fiscal doldrums.

<h3>The evisceration of the government's energy-research programs was one of the proudest achievements of the Reagan administration, which took the cheery view that the marketplace is the infallible governor of energy production, use, and innovations. Upon taking office, Reagan sought to reverse the big energy-research buildup started by Richard Nixon in response to the 1973 oil crisis and accelerated by Jimmy Carter as his domestic centerpiece.</h3> They aimed to mobilize science to squeeze more power from common fuels and guide the transition to new ones. In the hierarchy of tough research problems, these rank high, and require a lot of time and money.

When Congress thwarted Reagan's pledge to abolish the Department of Energy (DOE), <b>he responded with budget cuts that severely reduced or even eliminated the Department's various civilian energy-research programs. Congress again balked and kept them alive, but for energy research, it was the beginning of a decade of drought that has only partially lifted. The science and engineering grapevine naturally reverberates with news of hot and cold professional opportunities-with the scale invariably linked to the flow of federal money. There's still relatively little money, and therefore no stampede to energy research.

In 1980, the year before Reagan took office, DOE was budgeted for $560 million for solar-energy research and development, in its own laboratories and in universities and industry. When Reagan left office, the solar program was down to $90 million-thanks only to Congress preventing a complete wipeout. Among the items rescued from elimination was the Solar Energy Research Institute, the main federal laboratory for research in that field. The Bush budget for next year calls for a 30 percent boost in solar research, awesome by Gramm-Rudman standards, but the sum is still far below pre-Reagan levels.

Funds for coal research dropped from $755 million to $275 million during the Reagan years; conservation research from $295 million to $190 million, and research on non-solar renewable energies from $273 million to $48 million.</b> Nuclear energy received many heartfelt endorsements from the Reagan administration, which tended toward adoration of big high-tech projects. But here, too, the money record is dismal, with federal research dropping from $1.1 billion in 1980 to $340 million last year.

After a decade of plentiful petroleum, with real prices actually lower than they were 15 years ago, the zip is long gone from America's determination to use its scientific smarts for protection against oil disruptions.

This is evident in the hardpressed, financially shortsighted auto industry, which has persistently resisted higher fuel economy standards. In fact, the current average performance has declined from 28.6 miles per gallon in 1988 to 27.8 in the current model year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

European and Japanese manufacturers, in well-financed anticipation of the next oil crisis, have demonstrated conventional-style, gasoline-powered cars that get around 100 miles per gallon.

It's a well-kept secret if any American manufacturer can match that. Japanese auto manufacturers have also concentrated on packing six cylinders worth of power into economical and smooth-running four-cylinder engines, thus positioning themselves for what may well be a new era of high-priced fuel.

The Reagan-era contention that the marketplace is best for setting research priorities fails to account for the fiscal timidity of many American industries, particularly in financing long-term research. Governments can provide that endurance. That was the purpose of the energy-research programs that the Reagan administration trampled to near-oblivion.

The Bush administration has recognized the need for a comeback. The pace could be quickened. But one can only despair over the prospects of American staying power beyond the current round of Middle East turmoil.

Elphaba · 09-17-2006, 10:35 PM

If Time.com knows this... oh, fuck me...

I was about to ask the obvious question as to who can stop the president. Bush believes he has been given carte blanc by congress to make any military move he deems necessary in the "war on terror" without any further consultation. Rumsfeld will obey/welcome the order. Seconded by Cheney, of course.

If the neocon administration is intent on an attack of Iran, there will be only the military chiefs of staff to block that move. They are pledged to obey the CIC, but first of all to defend the Constitution.

I suspect we are about to learn what "Americans" are made of.

dc_dux · 09-18-2006, 12:25 PM

Ustwo...I am still trying to understand your original premise....that " Jimmy Carter is working to weakening the USA." Perhaps you can explain further.

Is he weakening the US because of how his remarks will be perceived in the UK. The people of the UK were already overwhelming against the war and the Labour Party lost seats in the last Parliamentary election, partially as a mandate against Blair's support of the US policy in Iraq.

Is he weakening the US with other allies? Of the major members of the original coalition in Iraq, only Australia continues to support the policy. The other two major coaltion members, Italy and Spain, have elected new governments, both in part, as opposition to supporting the US policy.

Is he weaking the US at home? I would suggesst that most Americans are not even aware of Carter's remarks (the same applies to most people among our allied countries) and have already formed an opinion about the war, with most now opposing.

Is he weakening the moral of the troops, as Mojo seems to imply?

Would you say the same about Colin Powell's recent remarks about Bush's bill to redefine prisoner interrogation policy:

“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 (of the Geneva Convention) would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”

I fail to see how Carter's remarks have done any of the above. In fact, both Carter's and Powell's remarks demonstrate that there are voices in government, past and present, who have different moral standards than Bush.

Why are such remarks bad and how does it weaken the US?

Any clarification would certainly help me and others understand your premise.

_God_ · 09-24-2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Is it just me or are old presidents now breaking the gentleman's code of not criticizing current administration choices, decisions and situations? I don't recall hearing from previous presidents in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

As nearly as I can tell, there are only two who do so. Bush Sr. publicly announced that he wouldn't second-guess Clinton.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

1. There is far more press covering ex-presidents and news can move within seconds across every part of this country.

2. Yes, there were ex-presidents before now that criticized how the government was being run. The Civil War is a great example. President John Tyler from Va. He tried to find a peace between the North and South and when it couldn't be reached, he took the South's side. OR Teddy Roosevelt felt that Taft was fucking up so badly he decided to split the party and run for president. Thus allowing Wilson to beat both of them.

3. Ex presidents are living far longer and in better health when they leave office. Most died shortly after leaving office.

So to say, this is something new, isn't true at all.

Maybe we could limit it to the last 50 years or so. Other than Reagan's comment that Bush Sr. "didn't seem to stand for anything" (which might have been Alzheimer's talking) I can't recall a president in my lifetime who behaved in such a classless fashion.

Now you have Mr. "Astroturf-in-the-bed-of-my-pickup" lecturing us. Lined up right behind him is Mr. "I've lusted in my heart" who was pretty much raised and educated in his young years by a sharecropper on his parents' farm. Who nominated himself for a Nobel prize.

Reagan wouldn't even take his coat off in the oval office, because he thought it was disrespectful. I'm not holding my breath waiting for a classy act from someone who couldn't keep his pants ON in the oval office.

host · 09-24-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _God_

.....Reagan wouldn't even take his coat off in the oval office, because he thought it was disrespectful. I'm not holding my breath waiting for a classy act from someone who couldn't keep his pants ON in the oval office.

Did you read any of the documentation that I've posted in this forum about Reagan, and if you did, do you disapprove of anything that Reagan did.....the reversal of the entire "alternative energy" policy, the energy independence policy, his cessation of tax credits and R&D funding for alternative energy, his appointments of crony incompetents to manage the Synfuel corp., and his budget "Cuts" that resulted in the federal treasury debt previously accumulated.....$995 billion, in total, between 1789 and Jan., 1981.....then jumping up to $2,500 billion by the time Reagan left office?

I am not impressed that Reagan kept his effing "coat on" as he sold out almost all of our interests to corporate financed interests that simply bought up and "slowed down" the progress of Solar energy, and permitted "big oil" to "price out" fledging alternative energy.....exactly what the plans that Carter put in place, were designed to prevent from happening.

Shouldn't your post "measure up" to the work that some of us did here to present the "other side" of this thread's OP argument? You only get one chance to make a first impression, and I did not learn anything from what you've posted. IMO, it isn't supported by what we know has happened.

Is there any extreme policy or decision.......below the degree of something as farfetched and obvious as a current president doing something totally "off the wall".....like launching an unprovoked "aggressive war" of preemption.....similar to what Justice Robert Jackson condemned at the Nuremberg trials, where you could support a former president's public questioning of the official performance and integrity of the sitting president, or for you, is silence always the "rule"?

ubertuber · 09-24-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Did you read any of the documentation that I've posted in this forum about Reagan, and if you did, do you disapprove of anything that Reagan did.....

Shouldn't your post "measure up" to the work that some of us did here to present the "other side" of this thread's OP argument? You only get one chance to make a first impression, and I did not learn anything from what you've posted.

There are much more productive ways to respond to people who have only been forum members for 8 days and have only made 7 posts. I'm sorry to address this publicly rather than through PM, but _God_ needs to know that TFP practice is to welcome to new posters and to improve their content through guidance and not intimidation.

While your posting style is unique, it is not the standard that we require for admission. This is a discussion forum.

09-17-2006, 09:32 AM	#41 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	You are right, America should conduct its policy based on international popularity and polls. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-17-2006, 09:44 AM	#42 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	mojo: because this administration has chosen to use the discourse of morality to justify its actions, how it is perceived internationally as a viable "moral agent" if you like is fundamental. the legitimacy not only of the administration's action, but of the administration itself rests on it. this was a choice the bush people made in the period immediately after 9/11/2001--and they have been consistent in their obsessive use of this language. so the problems that their actions create for them are fundamentally their own fault for choosing a strategy for marketing their ideology that is, quite simply, extremely vulnerable. the illusion of strength of purpose it provides is a very thin and tenous one. while the discourse of morality may appeal to the far right christian set, in the real world, it is a very risky tack to adopt. oddly enough, this lesson was also learned by the carter administration, but in a very different context with a very different (and to my mind far more sane) agenda behind it. maybe that is an underlying reason why the far right seems to be having fun the past couple days in excoriating carter--he threatens the illusion of monopoly on morality that the bush people like to claim for themselves. i think colin powell is right about the implications of the practices associated with the bushwar in its most general sense for the legitmacy of the united states as an international actor. i think mcain and warner are right as well. the bush administration is the worst enemy the discourses of democracy and morality have had for some time. the arguments that you have been making, which are all based on raison d'etat, overlook what machiavelli was very clear about: if you are going to wrap your actions in claims to morality, you cannot in fact be moral---but you MUST maintain the appearance of consistency, otherwise you will be reviled. and even you would have to admit that, at this juncture, the bush administration is reviled. everywhere. you might not like it, but you can't deny it. this points to a significant political problem that you cannot simply wish away. there is little to be done after a loss of legitimacy. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-17-2006 at 09:47 AM..

09-17-2006, 02:57 PM	#44 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	DC, I think it is a stretch to suggest that citizens in those countries would be more sympathetic to the terrorists than to the US. I more relevant point, as far as Europe is concerned anyway, is that they are democracies and a democratically elected goevernment can lose its support base by making decisions to support a war that is not popular at home. European nations recognize that their people do not support adding their arms to the folly of Iraq. To do so, would be political suicide. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-18-2006, 12:25 PM	#51 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Ustwo...I am still trying to understand your original premise....that " Jimmy Carter is working to weakening the USA." Perhaps you can explain further. Is he weakening the US because of how his remarks will be perceived in the UK. The people of the UK were already overwhelming against the war and the Labour Party lost seats in the last Parliamentary election, partially as a mandate against Blair's support of the US policy in Iraq. Is he weakening the US with other allies? Of the major members of the original coalition in Iraq, only Australia continues to support the policy. The other two major coaltion members, Italy and Spain, have elected new governments, both in part, as opposition to supporting the US policy. Is he weaking the US at home? I would suggesst that most Americans are not even aware of Carter's remarks (the same applies to most people among our allied countries) and have already formed an opinion about the war, with most now opposing. Is he weakening the moral of the troops, as Mojo seems to imply? Would you say the same about Colin Powell's recent remarks about Bush's bill to redefine prisoner interrogation policy: “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 (of the Geneva Convention) would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.” I fail to see how Carter's remarks have done any of the above. In fact, both Carter's and Powell's remarks demonstrate that there are voices in government, past and present, who have different moral standards than Bush. Why are such remarks bad and how does it weaken the US? Any clarification would certainly help me and others understand your premise. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

09-17-2006, 10:35 PM	#50 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	If Time.com knows this... oh, fuck me... I was about to ask the obvious question as to who can stop the president. Bush believes he has been given carte blanc by congress to make any military move he deems necessary in the "war on terror" without any further consultation. Rumsfeld will obey/welcome the order. Seconded by Cheney, of course. If the neocon administration is intent on an attack of Iran, there will be only the military chiefs of staff to block that move. They are pledged to obey the CIC, but first of all to defend the Constitution. I suspect we are about to learn what "Americans" are made of.