Re: [A-List] Peak oil angst hits the NYT

[Rick <rsspam@xxxxxxxxx>]

> > Rhetorically asked, why, on such an issue such as Peak Oil, must there
> > be a distinction between the Left and the rest of us?

Amplifying on Tony's response to this question, two things:

1) see my previous note re: the left-specific features of peak oil

2) The "left", and I don't mean most democrats, is comprised of
people who have discovered that there are facts that in the world
that cannot be discussed in the mainstream media and education
systems.

we aren't the only folks who know this.  for instance, on the right
(and i'm _assuming_ they're generally on the right), the michigan
militia would agree with us on certain taboo features of the real
world, like COINTELPRO and Waco, for example.  They omit the
corporate analysis, far as I know.

In any event, it falls to the dissidents of whatever stripe to break
the silence, more often than not, on many important issues.

But if you agree that corporate power and other moneyed elites more
or less run the country, then the dissident opinions that are most
shut out will be on the left.  So any issues that challenge the
legitimacy of the plutocracy will have to be raised by us.  the
Militia will not be there.

Peak oil is such a beast, i think, as is the market failure
represented by subsaharan AIDS.

anyway, that's how i see it.

In random news, I had an interesting experience with two new
acquaintances at work.  One, a Fox News-watching "independent", the
other, a libertarian.

the libertarian was genuinely concerned about subsaharan AIDS and
recognized it as a market failure.  His answer was to remove
government interference in the market -- namely, terminate patent
protection of US drugs outside the US so african companies can make
them themselves.

The Fox-News guy didn't turn red, but he certainly showed his true
corporate stripes.  Very interesting.

- Rick